|
Post by ck100 on Mar 20, 2024 14:37:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 20, 2024 15:36:50 GMT
A mediocre Ghostbusters movie, no way.
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Mar 20, 2024 17:26:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 22, 2024 18:32:35 GMT
What do all make of the mid-40's RT score? Is it time for the franchise to stop or at least go away for a while (fat chance as long as money is made)? What should the franchise do from this point forward?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 23, 2024 17:40:59 GMT
What do all make of the mid-40's RT score? Is it time for the franchise to stop or at least go away for a while (fat chance as long as money is made)? What should the franchise do from this point forward? For one, they should stop trying to treat it like a superhero franchise. It just doesn’t work.
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Mar 23, 2024 17:53:55 GMT
If it is that bad. Then some channels on youtube should make a review. And explain to the layman like me what are the problems.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 23, 2024 20:01:12 GMT
If it is that bad. Then some channels on youtube should make a review. And explain to the layman like me what are the problems. From the reviews on RT, two of the biggest complaints are the movie having too many characters, and too many callbacks/references to the 1984 original movie.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 24, 2024 0:32:15 GMT
If it is that bad. Then some channels on youtube should make a review. And explain to the layman like me what are the problems. From the reviews on RT, two of the biggest complaints are the movie having too many characters, and too many callbacks/references to the 1984 original movie. I don't think there are too many characters, but I think they could've divvied up the screen time a little better. The Rudd and Coon characters (the mom and dad) essentially have nothing to do in this movie, while entire scenes revolve around Aykroyd. Don't get me wrong, I liked seeing the legacy characters again, but they should have a diminished role going forward (if the franchise intends to go forward). It does feel a little crowded, but all of the subplots are connected so I still think it works. All of the new characters introduced in this movie could take the place of the legacy characters and it would still be a fun concept. Regarding the callbacks, again I'd say they were unnecessary without being detrimental to the film. I don't think you need that stuff at this point, but it didn't bother me at all. Did we need the same actor reprising his role at the library? No, but you're pretty effing cynical if that's going to affect your rating. Rotten tomatoes is a useless entity that tells you nothing about how good the movie actually is. It's currently sitting at 85% audience score, but all anyone will point to is the critical 43%. Not sure what movie the critics saw or what they were expecting, but my audience loved it. Most of the jokes landed with them, and they gave it a round of applause at the end.
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Mar 24, 2024 1:20:02 GMT
If it is that bad. Then some channels on youtube should make a review. And explain to the layman like me what are the problems.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 24, 2024 18:34:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Mar 24, 2024 19:19:18 GMT
I saw the movie yesterday. I liked Afterlife better, this was too all over the place and messy. It almost felt like an entire season of a tv series crammed into one movie. And the whole thing with Phoebe more or less committing suicide (I know it was supposed to be temporary but still) to be with that ghost girl just left a bad taste in my mouth and kind of soured the rest of the movie for me. It was one thing in The Frighteners when Michael J. Fox's character did the same thing since he was a fully grown adult, but having a child do it felt icky to me. I think if they had left that out and found some other way for the bad guy to be summoned, I would have liked the movie better.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 24, 2024 20:04:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 24, 2024 20:40:11 GMT
I saw the movie yesterday. I liked Afterlife better, this was too all over the place and messy. It almost felt like an entire season of a tv series crammed into one movie. And the whole thing with Phoebe more or less committing suicide (I know it was supposed to be temporary but still) to be with that ghost girl just left a bad taste in my mouth and kind of soured the rest of the movie for me. It was one thing in The Frighteners when Michael J. Fox's character did the same thing since he was a fully grown adult, but having a child do it felt icky to me. I think if they had left that out and found some other way for the bad guy to be summoned, I would have liked the movie better. The thing with Phoebe, it's not like she was dead. Her spirit was extracted from her body, but her body was still alive and functioning the whole time. I liked Afterlife well enough, but I prefer this one. I said coming out of the theater that it felt like they were juggling ideas for a season of a streaming show and decided to put them all into one movie, but I thought they tied them all together reasonably well. What the producers/studio needs to decide, if they want to continue pumping these things out (and it seems like they do), is finding a better balance between the new characters and the legacy characters. You can still involve the old crew in the film, but if you give them too much screen time, they're going to constantly overpower the new group to the point of making the audience why they should invest in these characters in the first place. I didn't mind them suiting up in this one, but the movie didn't need it. They gave that to us last time out. Just keep them around as consultants and benefactors in supporting roles. What the audience needs to decide (at least the ones complaining, who seem to be in the minority) is what they want out of a Ghostbusters movie. These movies have kind of morphed into an oddball family comedy, but the overall tone of the movies hasn't changed all that much. It's still a silly take on the supernatural with a few jump scares but mostly fluff; while the most mature content of the movie is some of the dialog and sexual references. That's straight out of the original Ghostbusters playbook, lest we forget how hard Venkman is trying to get into Dana's pants, or the scene where Stantz dreams about getting a BJ from a ghost. We can all agree Afterlife and FE are nowhere near as great as the original film, but once you acknowledge that, it's time to accept these movies for what they are. Ghostbusters for a new generation, with some winks to the good old days for longtime fans. They aren't going to recapture the magic of the original, but they can still be goofy fun in their own right, and I think they succeed in doing so. If there's a place where I think they're trying too hard, it's the mini Stay Puft guys. They don't bother me per se, but they scream merchandising while not really affecting the plot at all.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 24, 2024 21:12:32 GMT
At a certain point, this franchise will have to truly let go of the original film and actors. They're not getting any younger, and they've had their time. I'm not saying you should forget about the past, but if this franchise wants to continue into the future, it has to move on and forward from them.
Star Wars has to move on from Luke Skywalker and the original films. Mission: Impossible will eventually have to move on from Tom Cruise. Indiana Jones has to move on from Harrison Ford. You get the point.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 24, 2024 21:21:50 GMT
Or maybe they actually liked the movie? 'They're just saying it's good to spite the critics' is a step away from 'Theaters are turning off the AC so people won't see The Sound of Freedom' type of nonsense. If you saw it and didn't like it, so be it. But it's ridiculous to suggest people are giving it a high score despite not actually liking it. If the movie sucks, hardcore fans will be the first to bitch about it. And indeed, some of the negative reviews reflect this. And if it's the casual audience loving the movie, why would they bother lying to boost the score of the movie? What a strange theory, and that's not what that article is suggesting at all. It simply points out Frozen Empire is the latest in a growing trend of movies that were hits with fans but not critics. As I just said in another post, I guess it all comes down to expectations. It's wild to me the reaction to say, Blade Runner 2049 and the Ghostbusters movies, particularly on this board. Let me tell you as an enormous fan of both properties for decades (Blade Runner is my favorite film), I can say Blade Runner 2049 is absolute garbage, as vapid as Afterlife; with the difference being one film is a dopey comedy while the other is meant to be a serious meditation on the human condition. 2049 is a shiny but completely hollow film that offers nothing you didn't get 100 times better in the original. Yet everyone loves it. Because Rotten Tomatoes told them to? I don't want to make wild assumptions like others, but I've yet to hear anyone explain why they loved 2049, other than it was visually stunning with a fantastic score (to which I wholeheartedly agree-- but peel that stuff away and there's nothing there). Meanwhile, Ghostbusters movies are held to this ridiculous standard that I see in the RT reviews time and time again: "Fails to live up to the original." Well, no shit. It's just weird, man. Film Criticism, like all forms of journalism on the internet, is so populated by underqualified hacks lacking perspective as to render their inarticulate ramblings as worthless as some of the hatemongers on YouTube, or some of the shitposters on this board. And yet thanks to the power of the internet and sites like RT with its yea/nay format, they have the power to torpedo a movie before it even comes out. How many movies would have better reputations or bigger box office hauls if there was a, "Eh, it's fine" option on RT instead of only "It sucks" or It's amazing?" These are dangerous times for the film industry, all I can do is hope audiences continue to decide for themselves what they want to see.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 24, 2024 21:47:50 GMT
Or maybe they actually liked the movie? 'They're just saying it's good to spite the critics' is a step away from 'Theaters are turning off the AC so people won't see The Sound of Freedom' type of nonsense. If you saw it and didn't like it, so be it. But it's ridiculous to suggest people are giving it a high score despite not actually liking it. If the movie sucks, hardcore fans will be the first to bitch about it. And indeed, some of the negative reviews reflect this. And if it's the casual audience loving the movie, why would they bother lying to boost the score of the movie? What a strange theory, and that's not what that article is suggesting at all. It simply points out Frozen Empire is the latest in a growing trend of movies that were hits with fans but not critics. Well of course there are people who legitmately like the movie. I'm not trying to say that anyone who is giving the movie a high audience score doesn't really like the movie and is only doing so simply to get back at the critics. But there are some fans, most likely the hardcore fans, that regardless of how they feel about this movie, want to get back at the critics for panning a film that is so connected to the 1984 cast and film that they love so much. And since this movie so prominently features the original 1984 cast they love so much, and is so connected to the original film that they love so much, it's almost like they're taking it as an insult if a critic pans this movie given the strong love and connection a lot of fans have to the original cast and film, and how this movie is so connected to something they love so much.
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Mar 24, 2024 22:00:23 GMT
I saw the movie yesterday. I liked Afterlife better, this was too all over the place and messy. It almost felt like an entire season of a tv series crammed into one movie. And the whole thing with Phoebe more or less committing suicide (I know it was supposed to be temporary but still) to be with that ghost girl just left a bad taste in my mouth and kind of soured the rest of the movie for me. It was one thing in The Frighteners when Michael J. Fox's character did the same thing since he was a fully grown adult, but having a child do it felt icky to me. I think if they had left that out and found some other way for the bad guy to be summoned, I would have liked the movie better. The thing with Phoebe, it's not like she was dead. Her spirit was extracted from her body, but her body was still alive and functioning the whole time. I liked Afterlife well enough, but I prefer this one. I said coming out of the theater that it felt like they were juggling ideas for a season of a streaming show and decided to put them all into one movie, but I thought they tied them all together reasonably well. What the producers/studio needs to decide, if they want to continue pumping these things out (and it seems like they do), is finding a better balance between the new characters and the legacy characters. You can still involve the old crew in the film, but if you give them too much screen time, they're going to constantly overpower the new group to the point of making the audience why they should invest in these characters in the first place. I didn't mind them suiting up in this one, but the movie didn't need it. They gave that to us last time out. Just keep them around as consultants and benefactors in supporting roles. What the audience needs to decide (at least the ones complaining, who seem to be in the minority) is what they want out of a Ghostbusters movie. These movies have kind of morphed into an oddball family comedy, but the overall tone of the movies hasn't changed all that much. It's still a silly take on the supernatural with a few jump scares but mostly fluff; while the most mature content of the movie is some of the dialog and sexual references. That's straight out of the original Ghostbusters playbook, lest we forget how hard Venkman is trying to get into Dana's pants, or the scene where Stantz dreams about getting a BJ from a ghost. We can all agree Afterlife and FE are nowhere near as great as the original film, but once you acknowledge that, it's time to accept these movies for what they are. Ghostbusters for a new generation, with some winks to the good old days for longtime fans. They aren't going to recapture the magic of the original, but they can still be goofy fun in their own right, and I think they succeed in doing so. If there's a place where I think they're trying too hard, it's the mini Stay Puft guys. They don't bother me per se, but they scream merchandising while not really affecting the plot at all. I hope they do end up making more; I genuinely like the new characters and wouldn't mind seeing where their story goes. But I completely agree with you about finding a better balance. I think there needs to be some fine-tuning and focus on the new core characters, it almost feels like the filmmakers don't completely trust them to carry a movie, and if that's the case, then it doesn't say very much that they have so little faith in their own characters. If they do want to keep bringing back the old characters, I think that's fine but some compromise needs to be found so that they don't steal the new group's thunder like you said. Also one thing that was kind of missing from this was the way NYC was used. Obviously this doesn't apply to Afterlife, but in the original and II and even in the cartoon series to a lesser degree, NYC felt like a character itself; it felt so colorful and alive. Here the city just felt very generic and sterile to me. I'm not saying the movie did anything wrong per se, and I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'd just like the city to have more character if future installments are set there.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 24, 2024 22:11:41 GMT
I hope they do end up making more; I genuinely like the new characters and wouldn't mind seeing where their story goes. But I completely agree with you about finding a better balance. I think there needs to be some fine-tuning and focus on the new core characters, it almost feels like the filmmakers don't completely trust them to carry a movie, and if that's the case, then it doesn't say very much that they have so little faith in their own characters. If they do want to keep bringing back the old characters, I think that's fine but some compromise needs to be found so that they don't steal the new group's thunder like you said. I think that’s one reason why some critics don't like these latest movies being so tied to the original cast and 1984 film. It's like the filmmakers and/or studio don't trust the new cast to carry the film on their own and be free of the original film. It's like with these latest films and new cast they're overcompensating for the 2016 film having new faces, but not being involved with the original cast and film and knowing fans didn't like there wasn't a connection.
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Mar 24, 2024 22:15:05 GMT
I hope they do end up making more; I genuinely like the new characters and wouldn't mind seeing where their story goes. But I completely agree with you about finding a better balance. I think there needs to be some fine-tuning and focus on the new core characters, it almost feels like the filmmakers don't completely trust them to carry a movie, and if that's the case, then it doesn't say very much that they have so little faith in their own characters. If they do want to keep bringing back the old characters, I think that's fine but some compromise needs to be found so that they don't steal the new group's thunder like you said. I think that’s one reason why some critics don't like these latest movies being so tied to the original cast and 1984 film. It's like the filmmakers and/or studio don't trust the new cast to carry the film on their own and be free of the original film. It's like with these latest films and new cast they're overcompensating for the 2016 film having new faces, but not being involved with the original cast and film and knowing fans didn't like there wasn't a connection. I feel like people often forget that the 2016 film did in fact feature the original cast, even Sigourney Weaver, albeit in different roles.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 24, 2024 22:20:48 GMT
Or maybe they actually liked the movie? 'They're just saying it's good to spite the critics' is a step away from 'Theaters are turning off the AC so people won't see The Sound of Freedom' type of nonsense. If you saw it and didn't like it, so be it. But it's ridiculous to suggest people are giving it a high score despite not actually liking it. If the movie sucks, hardcore fans will be the first to bitch about it. And indeed, some of the negative reviews reflect this. And if it's the casual audience loving the movie, why would they bother lying to boost the score of the movie? What a strange theory, and that's not what that article is suggesting at all. It simply points out Frozen Empire is the latest in a growing trend of movies that were hits with fans but not critics. Well of course there are people who legitmately like the movie. I'm not trying to say that anyone who is giving the movie a high audience score doesn't really like the movie and is only doing so simply to get back at the critics. But there are some fans, most likely the hardcore fans, that regardless of how they feel about this movie, want to get back at the critics for panning a film that is so connected to the 1984 cast and film that they love so much. And since this movie so prominently features the original 1984 cast they love so much, and is so connected to the original film that they love so much, it's almost like they're taking it as an insult if a critic pans this movie given the strong love and connection a lot of fans have to the original cast and film, and how this movie is so connected to something they love so much. Agree to disagree because I don't understand why anyone would do that. "The critics were right, I actually don't like what they've done with this property that I 'love so much.' But I'm going to give it a high score so the studio keeps making trash I don't like, because I don't want the critics to be right." That sounds fucking crazy. As we both mentioned earlier in the thread, they need to move on from legacy characters in these old IPs. If anything, I thought the original cast was used too much in this film as it is.
|
|