I'm not defending anything. Nor am I trolling. You're making claims critics are paid off and I'm asking if you actually any tangible evidence that anyone's been paid off to like this movie. You're also claiming its pain by the numbers without even bothering to watch it. And that's it's seemingly unfathomable somebody could go see it and thoroughly enjoy it and give it an arbitrary score you don't agree with.

Given the talent involved, there is no reason this couldn't have been a really good comedy, worthy of the franchise.

Feel like the people in charge wanted to "play it safe", make a by the numbers comedy without taking any risks, and just make money off the name. Too bad.

Here's another fact - It's 3.7 on IMDb and is the most disliked trailer ever on YouTube.

Yes. A 3.7. From fans. Critic reviews there, shockingly, are saying the same thing on Rotten Tomatoes. But alas, it's not what you want to hear so I guess it need not count.

YouTube? Really? How many trailers on there get countless likes only to be absolutely shitty movies?

The real barometer is going to be box office. Money talks. The positive reviews the film is getting will likely help but moviegoer word of mouth will also play a big role in whether it's going to crash and burn or be a hit.

Trainwreck was the best Summer Comedy I can remember. Still was kinda derivative of love story motifs.

Bingo.

I hated the trailer. And moreover, I hated my then-roommate trying to convince me that it was still worth looking forward to, and trying to make it a gender issue. It's not. Women have been headlining films since fuck knows when, at least the 30s, this is not a breakthrough of any kind. It's a shit film issue. They took a franchise people have fond memories of and they painted it with the same unfunny Hollywood trying-to-amuse brush that films like Bridesmaids strive for.

But if everybody pays to see it, regardless of whether the people that leave think it's good or bad, it's accomplished it's goal as a spectacle that people wanted to see for themselves. And that would be the biggest crime of all - that Hollywood figured out a way to rape and cheapen people's memories with a blatant cash-grab remake, throw lazy comedy in there, and still came out better off for it. It deserves to bomb. I don't hate the idea of an all-women cast in an action film. I hate the idea of anybody, male or female, filling shoes that are impossible to fill.

It's not as if the perfect cast and concept came along, and it was like "you know what these guys would make great? The Ghostbusters franchise!" They were looking at old franchises they could exploit for a quick buck, and they figured the only way to avoid a direct comparison was to use women. Fine on paper, Bill Murray himself years ago said that would be the only way it would have a chance to fly - female cast, different style of film, but some core principles intact to appease the people that want it to be true to the original.

But just watching that trailer, there's no heart in it whatsoever. I want it to fail to stop this lazy element of cinema that has found itself relying on superheroes and remakes. If it does record business, we all lose.

What would you give that big loud black lady? I bet you'd give her 5/7 among other things.

I personally don't value the opinions of critics. I never have. (That's because I'm not a sheep.) The so-called "experts" are merely human beings (who put their pants on one leg at a time like me) screening a flick.


Besides, the photoplays they approve of, I typically find to be garbage. Reviewers are more then likely compensated by producers (and/or other influential figures) to praise their reels, and if they don't get enough cash from a certain company, they proceed to trash it.


The reason why I feel that way is because motion pictures have much more power over all citizens then some people realize. Films influence the world. Thus, they are essentially propaganda tools and they are all advertising something, so they require critical assessment and careful interrogation if we are to understand what they say about the concerns and values of those who favor them.


Some may argue that cinema should not be intensely viewed on a personal level and that they are just stories with little or no public bearing. Without any elaboration, popular opinion overall is that movie-viewing is a leisure activity that should be completed and forgotten until the next showing. This perspective is too casual and cavalier. Since studio executives and their clients do not exist in cultural vacuums, any motion picture should be seen as a commentary that is expressive of the society it's born in and as a form of expression for the audience who enjoys them.


In the case of "Ghostbusters" - More then likely this was created because the Clinton campaign is attempting to promote the notion that women in charge would be better for society and "the professional commentators" are naturally praising this long Democrat commercial.


Well, you know what the majority of the public is saying? We don't desire for females to be anything other then helpers like The Good Lord intended. Why do we feel that way? Besides for biblical reasons, women haven't prove themselves in society. If a chick's honor is insulted, instead of running to a man for protection, more broad's need to start handling things themselves.


They also need to kill more insects and not shriek and ask their boyfriend or husband to handle it. Madams should also check out that strange noise they hear in their living room and not look for a knight in shining armor to do it, and girls should offer to not only buy their own drinks, but insist (angrily if they have to) that they buy the guy's beverage too, and if another 9/11 happens and the ones with penises aren't there quick enough, skirts need to step up and help out, and do other things men have been doing for thousands of years, and they need to do a better job then us.


Then more folks might accept a picture about a team of nothing but dames fighting ghosts or other forms of evil.

The public isn't saying any of that. The movie hasn't come out for public viewing yet. The only people shitting on are those who voluntarily signed up for a movie site and decided to shit on it.

Money talks. We'll see what the public actually thinks when it's released this weekend.

I'm sure the reviews will be mostly the equivalent of 2.5 stars out of 4. Not good, not bad. I'm with DR2 in that I'm more interested in the box office totals. Word of mouth is a powerful thing even in these times.

If it was going to so huge business they wouldn't need to tie it in commercially from pizza to car insurance and overload on the commercials.

Every movie does that. It's not a reflection of how much business it's going to do. It's done to get the product out there to the masses in a variety of ways. Tie ins have been apart of the movie business for decades.

The Dark Knight had a Dominos pizza tie in andv that movie needed no help in the hype department. It's standard procedure.

Do you have stock in this film?

I'm wondering if you can find any point of conversation I've shown any semblance of bias that would generate such a dumb question.

Movies use tie ins nooooo. I never seen it happen ever! Say any chance Frozen cereal is still om the market?

I dunno but I saw Batman v Superman cereal boxes in the breakfast aisle today.

I Know my case of ecto cooler came today, and I got to say it's over rated

That's a bit of a bummer.

My tongue is now green! Can I sue?

The inquiry was my way of attempting to figure out why you not only instantly reply to posts insulting this film, but why you defend it with so much passion. Are you woman? A self-hating man? A liberal? What's your deal? Why do you care so much?


I'm your counterpart because frankly I'm sick of Caucasian men being verbally assaulted by the mainstream media. I'm not going to hate myself and garbage like this film is why I currently plan to vote for Mr. Trump, who months ago I couldn't even see myself dreaming of endorsing. I don't desire to live on any planet where a group gets insulted repeatedly, and that includes Anglo-Saxon males who apparently everyone else thinks deserves to be put down.



Are you aware that a motion picture honoring a baby-killer is coming out in October? This is the country we live in. For Pete's sake, police officers cannot even do their occupation anymore without being met with protests and gun fire. I know some will think I am looking too deeply into the subject, but as I typed before - Movies are a reflection of the society we live in and are propaganda devices that millions of malleable citizens view.


If we look to women to be our heroes, we're all going to be let down because most ladies in real life are cowards. They probably all love being a member of the weaker sex too, and that being scared and female is socially acceptable in the universe. If we attempt to change their rank, they will more likely resent it more then anyone because I doubt they desire to handle the adventures into hades that men have to go through during their lives.

So you can't specifically point out where I've defended the film then? Because I haven't. I don't know if it's good or not. The only thing I've been saying is it's been critically well received, and that it's not unfathomable that people actually liked the movie for what it is.

If that's your definition of defending then well, I guess that your take.

Just got back from this. It wasn't bad. If it was a sequel series not bad would pass. Reboot to me means you have to be better to justify it. They should just change their minds and say it wasn't a reboot and all of the guest characters were using aliases to hide from the truth.

It is a grade, actually. So, boo on you Damian. You're wrong.

If you want to go by the average rating, that's low too.

You're nit-picking. You wish to like the film, but you know it could be potentially terrible, so you don't desire to get labeled a fan of it.

So...not bad...one thumb up or no thumbs?

I do? Can you quote anything in this thread that says I want t like the movie? I couldn't honestly care less if it's good or not.

Per Google

"The Tomatometer is simply the percentage of professional critic reviews that award the movie a fresh score (greater than 6 out of 10) against the total number of reviews for the movie. A movie is rated fresh if it has a percentage above 60 and rotten otherwise."

I.e, binary system. How high a critic scores the movie is irrelevant per the the tomato meter. It's either or. But nice try.

45% of viewers like it. That is usually way higher than the critics because of summer movie fun.

It's been implied.

So, you can't quote it then?

And you can call that a grade. Arguing that it isn't a grade is semantics and pointless. Don't be a semantic cunt-sniffer.

Sounds like a disaster. I wonder if they will make their money back.

Majority agrees with Zeebs

RT
AUDIENCE SCORE

46%
liked it
Average Rating: 2.7/5
User Ratings: 76,873

Metacritic seems down on it too.

They made 3.4 million alone just on the small amount of theaters opening early on Thursday. They have a chance but it the movie just got nixed showing in China.

Womp womp.

China is nixing it? wtf

It's not possible to quote an attitude.

Uh huh.

I think China has things against ghosts and crap like that in movies

Amusingly they tried to get it in China under the title "Super Power Dare to Die Team" which sounds like a better movie

Think its because of the all female heroes cast.