Just keeps getting better and better.

Think you can always rely on a catchy theme song from Ghostbusters.

Well the new version it's on youtube and it sounds like a bunch of guys banging on garbage cans, and that's before the rap sequence comes in.

It's called I'm Not Afraid, but maybe somebody should be.

Set to open next week and no official reviews have appeared yet. Not sure if they are screening for critics.

There is however a youtube review that popped up overnight. If the guy is even close to being an impartial viewer, as he claims, this is going to be one awful movie.

The merchandising isn't going so well: link

"The stores are good at sensing turds."

Aykroyd's review from Twitter, May 29th.

"As originator of the original: Saw test screening of new movie. Apart from brilliant, genuine performances from the cast both female and male, it has more laughs and more scares than the first 2 films plus Bill Murray is in it! As one of millions of man-fans and Ray Stantz, I'm paying to see that and bringing all my friends."

Good enough for me. Why would he lie? What personal interest could he possibly have in it doing well? hahaha....

Anyway, I just re-watched the originals, part 1 about 2 weeks ago and part 2 last night. First is OK (but not even close to being a Top 10 Bill Murray movie), and the second is dreadful. Youtubed a few minutes of the 80's cartoon. Simply awful, as I vaguely remembered it being from what little I caught of it as a kid. In other words, for me, they can't mess it up with this new one. I don't know, maybe the 80's comic book series was awesome. There's got to be some reason for the reverence, but I don't see it. Perhaps it reminds people of happier times long ago. I get that totally. I have it for certain things, but I like to think those things are a lot higher in quality, haha...

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
Anyway, I just re-watched the originals, part 1 about 2 weeks ago and part 2 last night. First is OK (but not even close to being a Top 10 Bill Murray movie), and the second is dreadful.

Looking at old movies is a difficult thing, especially when you saw the same movies when they were brand new. We remember things we liked fondly, but the technology moves on, and when we see the same films years later they suffer by comparison to what has now become our new standard for films.

Recently I re-watched The Warriors, a film I liked and one with a good enough cult following to garner a few recent cards. The acting was terrible, the film quality of a bad "B" movie and the story was total stupidity. It was so over the top that it didn't even have anything to do with the NYC of that time, other than having been filmed in actual subway stations. I was kind of disappointed that what I remembered was so different than how I saw it now.

For me, that is not the case with either Ghostbusters film. I saw them recently enough to know that both hold up for me. GB2 was not as good as the first one but it had enough good moments for me. I would object to calling either of them Bill Murray movies. He was in them, he was a star, but he was not carrying them. It was the ensemble cast that worked, with every character being given a couple of good scenes and a nice chemistry between all of them.

See chemistry between actors is something that is either there or not. Regardless of acting ability, some people just don't look right together. Ghostbusters were silly stories, but it was not done as camp, they played it straight. The material was amusing, the effects pretty good even now, and even the actors looked like they were having a good time.

I'm not saying that reverence is in order, but the new Ghostbusters won't be one bit better because the old one isn't as good as some may remember. In fact, if you don't like the original anymore, there is no reason to bother with any lesser copy at all.

Well, sure, except for that I like the stars and director of this new movie.

As for "Warriors", that movie was almost mythical in its time with reports, probably apocryphal, of violence in the theatres where it was shown during its original run.

In recent years, the director Walter Hill went back and tinkered with it, adding comic book interstitials (ala "Creepshow"), and boy, that was unfortunate. This is one of those movies where the old VHS is superior to any more recent DVD or BluRay releases of it as a result of that.

When I saw it as a kid, I'd never been to NYC, so it did seem like some blighted fantasy land. Having been there a few times as an adult, though, the trajectory of the Warriors' perilous journey home from the Bronx to Coney Island became a lot easier to visualize. I still have good memories of it, but yeah, Michael Beck in the lead is a simply terrible actor (who for good measure almost single-handedly destroyed "Xanadu" with his presence. Almost.). On the other hand, James Remar (as Ajax), Lynne Thigpen (as the DJ), David Patrick Kelly (as Luther), and Roger Hill (as Cyrus) give performances that stand up to this day.

Anyway, there's a remake of "The Warriors" coming, just green lit. It'll be a series apparently. Be interesting to see what they do with it. It is tricky to make a movie with a street gang as protagonists and not glamorize gangs in the process, which was the controversy with the original film from 1979. I've heard it said it's impossible to make any kind of war movie without glamorizing war, and it may be the same thing here. We'll see.

Heh, actually the violence in theatres DID happen to the point where Paramount pulled the movie from cinemas, despite the fact that it was doing solid box office.

Here's an interesting article with that information. It also details how Beck became the star of the movie when he originally wasn't going to be. The intended star clashed with the director to the point where he was unceremoniously killed off on the fly midway through shooting.

http://www.villagevoice.com/ne...cult-classic-7607043

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
When I saw it as a kid, I'd never been to NYC, so it did seem like some blighted fantasy land. Having been there a few times as an adult, though, the trajectory of the Warriors' perilous journey home from the Bronx to Coney Island became a lot easier to visualize.

As a native New Yorker who rode the subway to Coney often in my younger days, I can tell you that what was depicted was a blighted fantasy land. The graffiti was real, the stations were real, the tunnels were real, and even the crime and the street gangs were real. Just not those street gangs.

Even in 1979, the most I ever saw was lettered jackets, and those were the better ones. No baseball uniforms, roller skates, fedoras, leather vests, painted faces. It's all about the colors, nothing more. But they sure looked fly on screen.

Reviews are starting to come in and so far they're not looking nearly as bad as most have feared - currently 77% on Rotten Tomatoes.

quote:

Originally posted by Logan:
Reviews are starting to come in and so far they're not looking nearly as bad as most have feared - currently 77% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Interesting. It's currently 3.7 out of 10 on IMDB.

The Ghostbuster reviews are not good and you know that because those that can be called positive reviews are full of qualifying statements. They like the cast, they like the director, they like the attitude, they like the special effects, they like that it has promise. They like everything and then they say that it really doesn't work. So what are they liking? Or do they just not want to be accused of sexism if they simply say it doesn't work?

In fact, the best thing that I keep reading about is the end credit scenes. I don't know if these are outtakes, cut scenes, or if they were made to be shown after that final, long fight sequence that we all pretty much know about already, but I've see it mentioned in a couple of reviews as being better than what's in the actual film.

On the other hand there are some awful reviews from major outlets and they will carry more weight.

I'm waiting to see audience reviews because those are the fans and fan opinion often differs from the critics, who are looking for things that don't matter to the audience as long as they are being entertained. This has not opened in the US yet.

"At this point, I'm going to call it now, although I acknowledge it may be wishful thinking: this movie will do well enough that there will be a sequel to it with this same cast."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movie...kt5R&ocid=spartandhp

D'oh!
Wishful thinking, as it turned out. Execs say the film has generated enough money from other "revenue streams" (including increased rentals of the original, haha) to cancel out the loss, but that's definitely not how sequels get made. They are talking about a full-length animation features and a followup animated TV series.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chesspieceface,

Oh chessie, you 'da man!!

I suspected that all of the early dreck over this movie was from the "eww, girls have cooties!" crowd, and you've pretty much confirmed it. It sounds like a fun movie and I may try and catch a showing this weekend, schedule permitting. Bonus, all the haters will be staying home, camped out in mom's basement.

LMAO!

So you do realize that the description which you are attributing to people who may hold a negative opinion to the new Ghostbusters is the same stereotype image that some people like to apply to trading card collectors, don't you?

I think we know better.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
LMAO!

So you do realize that the description which you are attributing to people who may hold a negative opinion to the new Ghostbusters is the same stereotype image that some people like to apply to trading card collectors, don't you?

I think we know better.

Nah, not the general population of folks who aren't into the idea of a new Ghostbusters, just the specific members of the He-Man Women Haters Club. (See the first two "reviews" in chesspieceface's last post as a prime example).

quote:

Originally posted by dcole:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
LMAO!

So you do realize that the description which you are attributing to people who may hold a negative opinion to the new Ghostbusters is the same stereotype image that some people like to apply to trading card collectors, don't you?

I think we know better.

Nah, not the general population of folks who aren't into the idea of a new Ghostbusters, just the specific members of the He-Man Women Haters Club. (See the first two "reviews" in chesspieceface's last post as a prime example).

It was the whole 40 year old, balding, fat, stunted in adolescence, failure, living in mom's basement image that I was laughing at.

No offense to those guys either, but you can dislike this movie without being one of them. Just as you can dislike this movie without being a woman hater. Maybe you simply dislike the movie.

You can dislike a movie for any reason you want, but disliking a movie you haven't seen says more about you than anything else.
The issue here is with people endlessly bellyaching over a movie they haven't even seen. I'm saddened that it had to make it's way to this forum, too, but it did, and here we are.
It is both a tired and pointless pursuit. If you wish to align yourself with people who describe the stars of this movie as "Ghostbuster Tampons", be my guest. As for my description of those who do that, I've seen enough of them to know it's apt, although admittedly not all-inclusive, so I'll amend it thusly:
Not all of them who do that are 40 years old. Some of them are 45.

As usual, there has been a lot more discussion on what is coming out (in cards or movies) than when it is actually here.

Despite Sony's attempts at a positive spin, which amounts to "it could be worse", Ghostbusters is expected to drop upwards of 55% of box office in its second weekend. Star Trek and Pets should be #1 and #2. Ghostbusters is fighting for position in the #3, #4 and #5 slots with Ice Age and a surprising lower budget horror flick called Lights Out.

International gross is seriously down because Ghostbusters has not yet been permitted to open in China, the second largest market. Something about objections to life like ghosts, which is pretty funny since anime is full of ghosts. I guess cartoons are exempt.

Anyway, at this rate, and needing to earn around 400M to call it even (studio estimate), Ghostbusters is going to have to take all revenue sources combined, including DVD, to come close to making any money.

Talk of continuing the new franchise is still present, but I would believe that Ghostbusters needs to have better legs than it is showing right now to be more than a one and done.

quote:

International gross is seriously down because Ghostbusters has not yet been permitted to open in China, the second largest market. Something about objections to life like ghosts, which is pretty funny since anime is full of ghosts. I guess cartoons are exempt.

Anime is Japanese, not Chinese

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
[QUOTE]
International gross is seriously down because Ghostbusters has not yet been permitted to open in China, the second largest market. Something about objections to life like ghosts, which is pretty funny since anime is full of ghosts. I guess cartoons are exempt.

Originally posted by Obi Wan Chrisobi: Anime is Japanese, not Chinese


You are correct, technically anime is only from Japan. There is something now called Chinese Manhua anime, don't ask me if it looks different, just produced in China I guess.

However Japanese anime is very, very popular in China and it is full of themes that the Chinese government does not approve. Some of it has been officially banned, but there is a terrific pirate black market over there, so it gets distributed anyway. What gets officially approved is another matter and so far Ghostbusters 2016 has not been allowed to open in a lucrative market.

I read somewhere that the original 2 movies have not been widely shown there either, so China is consistent in policy. I wonder if Sony took into consideration that they would probably lose a nice chunk of international box office revenue without getting that money?