Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed

[Replies From View]

Comes down from what

[idunnosomename]

Nostalgia bukake

[JamesTC]

I don't really understand why the Guardian are annoyed at the 2016 reboot being ignored. The 2016 version was a remake so it ignored the first two. If you wish to be a slave to continuity in the Ghostbusters universe, like some sort of paedophile, then you should be happy that it is carrying on from Ghostbusters 2.

Anyway, I shan't be seeing this. I have about as much interest in seeing a modern take on Ghostbusters as I do a modern take on Coneheads.

[chveik]

I don't really understand why the Guardian are annoyed at the 2016 reboot being ignored.

because they love culture wars shite

[Goldentony]

Maybe they're astounded you can spend that many millions of quid on a mistake and still get another crack at it

[Replies From View]

Maybe they're astounded you can spend that many millions of quid on a mistake and still get another crack at it

Why would they be so surprised.

[Goldentony]

whats the Guardians number, ill ask

[JamesTC]

whats the Guardians number, ill ask

0330 333 6790

[DJ Bob Hoskins]

The AV Club has a surprisingly good article about how modern Ghostbusters is shit because it doesn't have enough mucus or kid-traumatising content.

They had another surprisingly good article about this film and the topic of fan service in general, which is probably worthy of a thread in itself:

https://www.avclub.com/afterlife-hands-ghostbusters-back-to-the-fans-by-writ-1848090732

There's an excellent comment below the line which pretty much sums up the whole subject:

Matt Schimkowitz
11/21/21 12:41pm

And the thing about fan service is, it does the opposite in the long run. It's just catering to existing fans, but not creating new ones. I doubt any younger people who didn't grow up with the Ghostbusters will see this film and think, "Yes, this is the franchise for me!" It will just seem weird and inscrutable, full of in-jokes and references you won't get without seeing the previous films.

If you are really a fan of something, you should want to make more fans. For example, Daria was one of the seminal shows of my upbringing. It got me through a lot of rough years with its characters and messages. And when I heard it was being rebooted, but with Jodie at its center, at first I felt a twinge of fanboy, thinking "No! It's Daria's show!" But this would be wrong. The original series fulfilled its purpose for me. Now, I want this news series to do the same for someone else going through what I went through as a teen, and that demands speaking to younger people, not to this nearly 40 year old. It's what will ensure the whole series will live on.

All fans should feel this way, and stop being so protective of these things like they are holy relics behind glass.  We'll always have the originals to treasure.  Let there be something new, so that new devotees may be made.  THAT is real fanservice. 

[Shaky]

I don't really understand why the Guardian are annoyed at the 2016 reboot being ignored. The 2016 version was a remake so it ignored the first two. If you wish to be a slave to continuity in the Ghostbusters universe, like some sort of paedophile, then you should be happy that it is carrying on from Ghostbusters 2.

They've posted three reviews, by my count, so probably just running out of things to say.

[Replies From View]

They've posted three reviews, by my count, so probably just running out of things to say.

Probably need to be angry about each of the three existing films in order to appeal to all of the fanbase

[Goldentony]

people havent shut up about this since it came out have they, will not stop for a minute

[Avril Lavigne]

That's what Ghostbusters is now,  end of thread.

[madhair60]

Marvel are a fucking cancer.

[popcorn]

oh get a grip.

[Goldentony]

well worth time time and effort this say studios

[madhair60]

oh get a grip.

no.

[dissolute ocelot]

That's what Ghostbusters is now,  end of thread.

If you like Taika Waititi surely you want to see him making more films about Hitler and runaway kids, not jumbled, fitfully amusing franchise nonsense. It's as if they genuinely can't conceive of movies outside an existing franchise, or any ambition beyond making a slightly better toy advert. What about the Hitler franchise? Doesn't it deserve love?

And James Gunn is competent enough, but does he have a unique vision he needs to bring to bear on every piece of IP in the universe? Couldn't he get back to Troma and make 1000 films as entertaining as Suicide Squad for the same money?

[phantom_power]

There is the possibility of both, as Waititi shows. In fact, doing a big Hollywood film is often used by more interesting directors to give them more clout/money to make their more personal projects.

I think it is quite interesting seeing how a director can mould a franchise to fit their style, and vice versa, and again I think Waititi is a good example of this, as is Gunn. The problem with Marvel is they often don't have the courage of their convictions with other directors

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

Another issue is that the action in all Marvel films is handled mostly by the same second unit. The director has a lot of control over characterization, dialog and even plot, but they aren't supposed to take care of the complex action sequences with a lot of CGI that are put together in parallel. They tend to be quite generic, because of the factory approach, even if directors can have input to some degree on them. It was very noticeable in Thor: Ragnarok and even in Black Panther. Sure, Ryan Coogler was able to put a long take in it, but compare the scene in the casino, where it's mostly a gimmick, to Creed's first fight in his previous film where it helps immensely to see the action from a single POV, and the difference is day and night. When Ryan Johnson made The Last Jedi, he had full control even on the action scenes, and it shows, as the fight in the throne room or the final battle on the mineral planet use some imagery that is totally in line with the rest of the film. For Thor: Ragnarok, as some director reported on Twitter before his agent made him delete the posts if he wanted to get a Marvel gig at some point in his career, we have the light comedy we expect from Waititi, and then we switch to the formulaic action sequence prepared by the huge sausage factory at Marvel, which always plays the same beats.

[phantom_power]

I would have thought that even if the action was shot by second unit, the director would have had input in storyboarding and pre-production planning. I suppose it depends how they see those scenes, as integral to the piece or connecting points between sections of plot. Ragnarok seemed very distinct in its action set pieces in an overall sense, even if specific sections were fairly generic

[Retinend]

There are good SNL films - the two Wayne's Worlds, The Blues Brothers,

um.

MACGRUBER

[bgmnts]

It's not their personal stories though really is it? It's a film designed by committee about some superhero who is legally allowed to be in the film.

The director or writer cant go hey I want the xmen to be in this can they? It does just feel like pure slop now. Decent slop, but slop all the same.

But then Ghostbusters has always been a franchise like that anyway hasn't it with all the toys and shit?

[madhair60]

Yeah there's nothing even remotely "personal" about any of the stories told in any of the six hundred identical marvel movies

[Mister Six]

Oi.

[Replies From View]

Oi.

this link should have been posted in the one relevant marvel thread

[madhair60]

Oi.

This isn't a Marvel thread to be fair to me.

[Mr Banlon]

There are good SNL films - the two Wayne's Worlds, The Blues Brothers,

um.

The Ladies Man is one of my guilty pleasures.

[Custard]

Saw this tonight

Eh, it was almost exactly how I'd imagined it'd be. Little to no surprises

Liked the girl, and Podcast/Stand In Dan Akroyd was quite likeable too. Stranger Things played the same character he always does, and his love interest lady was boring as fuck

The cameos were alright.

Spoiler alert

CGI Egon looked really good

[close]

But ultimately it just felt so empty and cynical. The last third is

Spoiler alert

literally just the last third of the first film again. So fucking lazy getting the same villain back. Was that Olivia Wilde?

[close]

Spoiler alert

The Ghostbusters theme hitting at the end just felt like it belonged to a completely different film, cos it does. The recognisable background music was jarring too

[close]

Almost none of the jokes hit in the cinema I was in. Deathly silence throughout.

Hardly an original thought, but this really is The Force Awakens of Ghostbusters. But somehow more depressing and lazy

That said, there are bits I enjoyed, like when they chase Muncher, or whatever the fuck he's called. And the first third felt very different to the previous films, before they chickened out and went the nostalgia route.

The mini Marshmallow Men were fucking stupid and nonsensical, and felt like a big advert for Walmart. None of that scene made any sense, was clearly a ripoff of Baby Yoda and filmed specifically to sell toys, and they should feel ashamed.

And Ray doesn't even get sucked off by a ghost. Not even a kiss.

3 bags, was nearly 2

[Shaky]

I must have been in a good mood or something because I enjoyed this. Yes, it's ultimately a very blatant retread of the first film but they just about pull it off. I'd say you have to be a big GB fetishist or a total newbie, though. And sure, it's lazy but I wouldn't say cynical - it's heart definitely shines through unlike, say, The Force Awakens which was far more of a letdown because there was so much more they could've done. This knows what it is, knows we know, and your mileage may vary.

Some decent jokes which landed in my cinema as well, from Grace, Rudd and the Podcast lad.

Have to confess to a tear in my eye when Ray was told about Egon's death.

Spoiler alert

Even CGI, ghost Spengler was pretty well done and didn't seem horribly misguided.

[close]

And yes, Custard,

Spoiler alert

it was Olivia Wilde. And fucking JK Simmons as Ivo Shandor!

[close]