Ghostbusters reviews are...positive!

[DefunctTheory]

True, each JP film has had a different theme and explored it with varying levels of success, but JP ends with the knowledge that Hammond's system can't work, JW's entire foundation is that it can, and things only go awry because of the I-Rex. JP1 has the theme of "the illusion of control," JW has the theme of "the want of more," but even so, it's a noticable divide.

Jurassic Park tries to have the theme of 'the illusion of control', but it really doesn't succeed at it. In the first movie everything also works fine (apart from certain bugs that the movie explains every major theme park and zoo has) until Nedry screws up the system.

It doesn't actually back that theme up with any sort of proof of a flawed system.

With the release of Jurassic World, the theme of the 'series' now is that greed spoils everything. The first attempt to bring dinosaurs into the world is ruined when Dennis sells out the park, which starts off the whole sorry affair, and he's only in the position to do so because Hammond refused to pay for a properly cleared security engineer, going with the lowest bidder.

Jurassic World fails because of the park is constantly pushing for more corporate money, throwing caution to the wind to make a new form of brand advertisement - Literally making new animals for corporations to stamp their name on. Which also opens the way up for the military to come along and fuck things up.

Probably not intentional, but all things considered, it holds up better then what they were originally aiming for I think.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Look man, the trailer showed me Adam Sandler tier humour. All the critics in the world can tell me that's it's enjoyable but as long as stuff like Paul Blart and The Do Over continue to make bank I'm not touching it.
Ever.
You can tell me that the trailer is not indicative of the film, but it did show what kind of jokes that would be in it. That's enough to know that I'll try and fashion a noose out of Twizzlers before the movie ends.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Thew reviews don't even feel that positive to me. This is going to be one of those movies that ages poorly, and with hindsight will be highly railed against by everyone. Just like when Phantom Menace first came out with positive reviews, but is now considered one of the worst things ever. In a few years, we will know how good the movie is when people have to think back on it all a little more. Just like Jurassic World. That movie is also pretty awful all around. If it wasn't for that crazy over-the-top fight at the end, or the fact that Lost World and JP3 are so horrendous, we probably wouldn't even be talking about that movie, either.

I found JP 3 the only good movie out of the sequals.

I mean really why is that movie hated?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

That's actually pretty damning if its true.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I found JP 3 the only good movie out of the sequals.

I mean really why is that movie hated?

Probably because it feels like someone's fanfiction, and because Tea Leoni is in it and doesn't get devoured.

The only cool thing about that movie was the big dino gun that they tease, and then promptly don't use for the rest of the movie.

 

[maninahat]

PS the vitriol is more a function as a result of the shilling that has gone on. Here's something that was censored off of reddit for example.

This thinking fascinates me. It's not enough for people to preemptively hate a movie they haven't seen, they have to also preemptively accuse the positive reviewers of being bribed via evidence they haven't seen either.

 

[EbonBehelit]

I do like the "where's the TMNT hate campaigns?" bit.

I mean, sure, there isn't a campaign against it per se, but the hate is there, and it's palpable indeed. There's just nothing political at play, so the collective anger is never going to tip over into furious debate territory.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

The gender politics surrounding this film means I can't trust any positive or negative reviews. The chances are too high that the game is being given a pass, or burned at the stake, because of the Ghostbusters' genders. That, coupled with the uninteresting trailers, means I wont be going to see this movie. But hey, kudos if they proved the "haters" wrong and made a good film.

 

[Schadrach]

Have you considered the idea that professional critics from (mostly) print journalism aren't all that invested in the debate, and more interested in honestly saying whether they like a movie about shooting ghosts with lasers?

It's worth noting that reviews from outlets that were pushing the whole "not liking the trailer is sexism" angle previously tend to be noticeably higher than reviews from outlets that weren't doing that.

What the ever-loving fuck was that atrocity? Is that supposed to be the theme song for the new film?

Nevermind whatever else I said, I'm not seeing this film ever, solely on the principal that someone actually greenlit that song as the new theme. Holy shit...

So, what you are saying is that you hate women? =p

There are plenty of reviews that say it is exactly what you've pegged it as and some of the positive reviews directly mention "basement dwelling gamergate types," leading me to believe that perhaps some portion of their review was politically motivated.

We are talking about a movie where they went back for reshoots to have a scene where the main cast read negative YouTube comments about the trailer. The political motivation of the reviews is reflecting the political motivation of the film. Which is largely to excuse being not good by putting up the misogyny shield, so that if you don't like it, you must just hate women.

That's actually pretty damning if its true.

For reference, you can see most things that have been deleted from reddit by the mods by replacing reddit.com in the URL with r.go1dfish.me. It's handy for that.

In this case though, it's not necessary as an edited version of it is still on the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/4s6of5/_/d573ypg

 

[hentropy]

In some ways it feels like the movie simply being "meh" to "average" seems like the worst possible outcome. Anyone can convince themselves that an average movie is horrible or great rather easily, and political stuff makes it that much easier. I don't like aggregates myself, I think the content of the reviews are more important than numbers when you're talking about qualitative analysis, and it seems like that's the consensus. Not a home run, but also not a strikeout. Just a bloop-single I guess.

Despite the "social justicey" aspects of Fury Road or The Force Awakens, those movies stood well enough as great movies on their own. If the movie was really bad, even feminists could write it off as just an experiment gone awry.

As someone who never liked the original Ghostbusters movie, I probably won't be seeing it regardless, but it is an entertaining social experiment to watch where simply turning "all dudes" into "all women" makes everyone on the internet flip their shit even before the movie is available to watch to the general public. .

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I found JP 3 the only good movie out of the sequals.

I mean really why is that movie hated?

Probably because it feels like someone's fanfiction, and because Tea Leoni is in it and doesn't get devoured.

The only cool thing about that movie was the big dino gun that they tease, and then promptly don't use for the rest of the movie.

Fanfiction?

The plot is rather simple, its a rescue mission and the charcaters have an adventure.

That is what JP3 really was, a theme park ride.

And hey man Tea Leoni's face is too cute and sexy to eat:

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You can check the evidence for yourself if you wonder. I don't think it's about bribery, I think it's about people having a political investment in the movie being good. As in my previous post, you can see that at least one of the reviewers views the movie through a political lens.

Everybody views a movie through a political lense. Specifically, their political lense.

 

[starbear]

When you have to trot out the old cast and threaten them with lawsuits to help promote your movies

Can you stop repeating this as if it has some basis in fact? Because no-one, including Bill Murray, were threatened with lawsuits.

There were a couple of emails sent around where the possibility of a suit was discussed.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704

However sensible heads prevailed.

"Personally, while I?m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn?t seeking the spotlight." -David Steinberg

As for Bill Murray: from words he actually said:

"I thought about it for a very long time. Like, many, many months. No, that?s not right. I was seriously thinking about this for years, really ? It kept eating at me, and I really respect those girls. And then I started to feel like if I didn?t do this movie, maybe somebody would write a bad review or something, thinking there was some sort of disapproval [on my part]."

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Bill-Murray-Gives-His-Most-Honest-Reaction-Yet-Ghostbusters-Remake-135947.html

So Bill Murray didn't cameo in the New Ghostbusters because of a threatened lawsuit. He did it because he respected the cast, and didn't want his non-appearance in the movie to be viewed as disrespectful of the movie.

TLDR: Bill Murray cameoed in Ghostbusters because of the haters. Well done guys: you made an apparently great movie even better.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You can check the evidence for yourself if you wonder. I don't think it's about bribery, I think it's about people having a political investment in the movie being good. As in my previous post, you can see that at least one of the reviewers views the movie through a political lens.

Everybody views a movie through a political lense. Specifically, their political lense.

You'll have to point out the political lens used for this review then: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-2001-a-space-odyssey-1968

That would be the political lense of one Mr. Roger Ebert.

Sorry, but I do not see a political lens applied when I read that article.

"Only a few films are transcendent, and work upon our minds and imaginations like music or prayer or a vast belittling landscape. Most movies are about characters with a goal in mind, who obtain it after difficulties either comic or dramatic. ?2001: A Space Odyssey'' is not about a goal but about a quest, a need. It does not hook its effects on specific plot points, nor does it ask us to identify with Dave Bowman or any other character. It says to us: We became men when we learned to think. Our minds have given us the tools to understand where we live and who we are. Now it is time to move on to the next step, to know that we live not on a planet but among the stars, and that we are not flesh but intelligence."

Huh. Interesting.

 

[lacktheknack]

Normally, I'm not an especially spiteful person.

But now that this movie is "Certified Fresh", I have melted into a giddy pile of spite for the dedicated hatefans.

Take THAT. And THAT. And THAT.