Because no one in Hollywood can actually predict what is going to work. Basing stuff off old properties, you at least have a track record that it worked in the past....
i never saw it and probably never will so i won't comment on its quality. i don't have a problem with it, per se, and i find the entitled mostly-20-something white guys who cry "sjw" to be pretty pathetically non-self-aware (i know, i might have been one of them 20-25 years ago had the internet been then was it is now), but i am generally kind of annoyed by the inability of hollywood to fall back on old ideas instead of new surprising things--in my formative years most movies were original stories and not not reboots of existing movies or comic book stories retold or whatever. i guess it's fine to do that, some of them are good, but it just seems like it's far too substantial a percentage of what gets created because hollywood is so risk-averse to try telling new stories.
i never saw it and probably never will so i won't comment on its quality. i don't have a problem with it, per se, and i find the entitled mostly-20-something white guys who cry "sjw" to be pretty pathetically non-self-aware (i know, i might have been one of them 20-25 years ago had the internet been then was it is now), but i am generally kind of annoyed by the inability of hollywood to fall back on old ideas instead of new surprising things--in my formative years most movies were original stories and not not reboots of existing movies or comic book stories retold or whatever. i guess it's fine to do that, some of them are good, but it just seems like it's far too substantial a percentage of what gets created because hollywood is so risk-averse to try telling new stories.
Not sure how old you are but even back in the day we had plenty of franchises. Aliens, Jaws, Predator, back to the future, godfather, ghostbusters, Terminator, Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Planet of the Apes, honey I shrunk the kids, Wayne worlds, bill and ted, etc. Yes there definitely was more original properties but it's not like franchises are a 21st century thing.
i'm 43, so i was born in the early 70s... i guess the difference is that while i remember all the franchises, they all were at some point during my lifetime original ip. aliens was the sequel to alien, but alien was something new. godfather ii was the sequel to godfather (which was derived from a novel), but godfather was new. ditto ad nauseum. i mean, the sequelitis was always a thing and for the same reason (risk aversion--the first one of these things did well, we can get a leg up with this new movie by deriving it and therefore we have built-in name recognition and a built-in fan base), but if they'd done then what they do now we wouldn't have had indiana jones, terminator, alien, or ghostbusters, we'd have had the blob reboot and night of the living dead remake etc. it just seems like in the past 10-15 years they've turned that propensity up to 11.
Can anyone answer this: What was the point of the small traps? They had small traps and ended up with a containment unit, but unless I missed it, none of the ghosts were trapped. They just got exploded into slime.
While it's obviously ridiculous to get uptight about the gender of the titular leads, I was honestly taken aback by Hemsworth's character, and how mentally vacant he was presented as being... Not since late seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer have I seen a male character trodden upon so hard in the name of femininity. You don't have to lessen the males to give the females proper credit. The dorky male antagonist (cannot remember his name) was given absolutely no plot at all, he was just pissed at the world. Imagine if the ladies wanted to be Ghostbusters "just 'cause they felt that way 'cause people had been mean to them" with no depth.
Can anyone answer this: What was the point of the small traps? They had small traps and ended up with a containment unit, but unless I missed it, none of the ghosts were trapped. They just got exploded into slime.
While it's obviously ridiculous to get uptight about the gender of the titular leads, I was honestly taken aback by Hemsworth's character, and how mentally vacant he was presented as being... Not since late seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer have I seen a male character trodden upon so hard in the name of femininity. You don't have to lessen the males to give the females proper credit. The dorky male antagonist (cannot remember his name) was given absolutely no plot at all, he was just pissed at the world. Imagine if the ladies wanted to be Ghostbusters "just 'cause they felt that way 'cause people had been mean to them" with no depth.
I haven't seen the film, so this might be off base, but you just described the female character in lots and lots and lots of guy-buddy movies. Not that it's justified when it's any gender, but women frequently feel that way about the first female lead when she's the 5th-6th lead altogether.
You're 100% correct, and I hope my point came across in my rambling Just in case, it was: Why shoot past equality way to the inversion of unnecessarily degrading females? Wouldn't that be putting women in the role of being the offender(s)? Janine Melnitz was never portrayed as stupid (in the movies at least), so literally the only reason for Thor being in GBsters '16 was to play the role you mentioned. Damn, I rambled again... :-/
It's not poorly written at all. I'm sure there are people who just genuinely were not that into it, but it is by no stretch a "bad" movie. It has a decent script, some excellent female comedy actors and a good comedy director. It's not fucking Deuce Bigalow in Europe.
It has been held to a far higher standard than any other summer comedy, and it was hampered out the gate by people (let's be real - men) determined to hate it regardless. Everyone I know personally who has seen it has opinions ranging from "Yeah, it was okay - not great, but fun enough" to "Wow, I loved it". One guy I work with told me when it came up in conversation "Ugh, that shit. It's terrible." I asked if he'd seen it, he admitted he hadn't. I asked him to watch it, he did. His opinion: "It was good - not the best movie ever, but definitely had its moments."
Here's the thing: it wasn't meant to be the greatest movie ever. It was just meant to be a fun comedy movie. It didn't need any deep introspection. It's not a film made for "film experts". It's a film made for people who want to kill two hours having a laugh.
Having said that, it did resonate with many feminists (including myself) for several reasons, and there have been a lot of pieces written about that, which are easily found if anyone wants to read them.
People just need to stop being all pissy about a movie that for whatever reason didn't appeal to them. Not everything is for everyone. I don't get online and rage about how shit the Fast and Furious movies are because I don't like cars or overt machismo. I just don't bother watching them and move on with my life.
I guess remaking Ghostbusters was cruising for a bruising.
They should experiment and do Ferris Bueller's Day Off with a female lead and see what happens. And to control for it they could remake Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club as is and compare the results.
@Dee, great point. Innumerable male comics make truly terrible films, and awful box office bombs, and nobody stops to question the validity of men making funny movies. Women make an average film and people say with a straight face, "women just aren't funny."
It's not poorly written at all. I'm sure there are people who just genuinely were not that into it, but it is by no stretch a "bad" movie. It has a decent script, some excellent female comedy actors and a good comedy director. It's not fucking Deuce Bigalow in Europe.
It has been held to a far higher standard than any other summer comedy, and it was hampered out the gate by people (let's be real - men) determined to hate it regardless. Everyone I know personally who has seen it has opinions ranging from "Yeah, it was okay - not great, but fun enough" to "Wow, I loved it". One guy I work with told me when it came up in conversation "Ugh, that shit. It's terrible." I asked if he'd seen it, he admitted he hadn't. I asked him to watch it, he did. His opinion: "It was good - not the best movie ever, but definitely had its moments."
Here's the thing: it wasn't meant to be the greatest movie ever. It was just meant to be a fun comedy movie. It didn't need any deep introspection. It's not a film made for "film experts". It's a film made for people who want to kill two hours having a laugh.
Having said that, it did resonate with many feminists (including myself) for several reasons, and there have been a lot of pieces written about that, which are easily found if anyone wants to read them.
People just need to stop being all pissy about a movie that for whatever reason didn't appeal to them. Not everything is for everyone. I don't get online and rage about how shit the Fast and Furious movies are because I don't like cars or overt machismo. I just don't bother watching them and move on with my life.
I thought it was "watchable". I love Kate McKinnon. I don't watch "fun summer movies" to reflect on the oppression of women over the last... forever, though.
The guy from work sounds like an asshole by the way.
I had no issue with women playing the roles. My issue is that Hollywood had to remake a comedy classic. They could have had Tom Hanks, Christian Bale, Russell Crowe, and Denzel Washington replace the original cast and it still would have bothered me. Leave classics like this alone and make an original movie. All these remakes in the works are getting out of hand (Oceans Eleven, Scarface, White Men Can't Jump) How lazy is hollywood these days?
I'm not denying there was a gender issue with some of the fans of the original but not me. The issue is bigger. It's kind of travesty that there are now two Ghostbuster movies and now you have to clarify which one you're referring to whenever you mention the title.
Saw it last week again and it's OK. If there are any Starz executives browsing the Bald Move forums, please don't run Spaceballs and the new Ghostbusters back to back. It's just not fair.
I don't have anything original to add, but I do want to echo some of the complaints towards writing/directing. The treatment of science is objectively worse, the comedy isn't as sharp, and there's nothing visually groundbreaking like in the 1984 film. That has nothing to do with the ladies, so I point the finger at Feig. Spy was so much funnier and twisted the genre in similar ways, which I assume is what landed him the job, but this was such a bland effort. Maybe there was some studio trickery or maybe that's what happens when you give a comedy director a $140 million budget.
"Fifty Shades Darker saw far less of a decline in its second weekend than the first film, 2015's Fifty Shades of Grey. The sequel dipped 55 percent over the three days to $20.9 million from 3,714 theaters for a projected four-day take of $24.1 million and a domestic tally of $92.9 million.
The erotic, S&M-laced follow-up topped the foreign chart with $43.7 million for an offshore cume of $89.7 million anda global total of $267.9 million through Sunday."
Comments
While it's obviously ridiculous to get uptight about the gender of the titular leads, I was honestly taken aback by Hemsworth's character, and how mentally vacant he was presented as being... Not since late seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer have I seen a male character trodden upon so hard in the name of femininity. You don't have to lessen the males to give the females proper credit. The dorky male antagonist (cannot remember his name) was given absolutely no plot at all, he was just pissed at the world. Imagine if the ladies wanted to be Ghostbusters "just 'cause they felt that way 'cause people had been mean to them" with no depth.
It has been held to a far higher standard than any other summer comedy, and it was hampered out the gate by people (let's be real - men) determined to hate it regardless. Everyone I know personally who has seen it has opinions ranging from "Yeah, it was okay - not great, but fun enough" to "Wow, I loved it". One guy I work with told me when it came up in conversation "Ugh, that shit. It's terrible." I asked if he'd seen it, he admitted he hadn't. I asked him to watch it, he did. His opinion: "It was good - not the best movie ever, but definitely had its moments."
Here's the thing: it wasn't meant to be the greatest movie ever. It was just meant to be a fun comedy movie. It didn't need any deep introspection. It's not a film made for "film experts". It's a film made for people who want to kill two hours having a laugh.
Having said that, it did resonate with many feminists (including myself) for several reasons, and there have been a lot of pieces written about that, which are easily found if anyone wants to read them.
People just need to stop being all pissy about a movie that for whatever reason didn't appeal to them. Not everything is for everyone. I don't get online and rage about how shit the Fast and Furious movies are because I don't like cars or overt machismo. I just don't bother watching them and move on with my life.
I thought it was "watchable". I love Kate McKinnon. I don't watch "fun summer movies" to reflect on the oppression of women over the last... forever, though.
I'm not denying there was a gender issue with some of the fans of the original but not me. The issue is bigger. It's kind of travesty that there are now two Ghostbuster movies and now you have to clarify which one you're referring to whenever you mention the title.
I don't have anything original to add, but I do want to echo some of the complaints towards writing/directing. The treatment of science is objectively worse, the comedy isn't as sharp, and there's nothing visually groundbreaking like in the 1984 film. That has nothing to do with the ladies, so I point the finger at Feig. Spy was so much funnier and twisted the genre in similar ways, which I assume is what landed him the job, but this was such a bland effort. Maybe there was some studio trickery or maybe that's what happens when you give a comedy director a $140 million budget.
"Fifty Shades Darker saw far less of a decline in its second weekend than the first film, 2015's Fifty Shades of Grey. The sequel dipped 55 percent over the three days to $20.9 million from 3,714 theaters for a projected four-day take of $24.1 million and a domestic tally of $92.9 million.
The erotic, S&M-laced follow-up topped the foreign chart with $43.7 million for an offshore cume of $89.7 million anda global total of $267.9 million through Sunday."