Ghostbusters (2016) Reboot: Does Anyone Actually Remember This?

[Thebestoftherest]

I think the argument if you don't like this movie your a sexist is the greatest insult you can give a female lead movie.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

\
What the hell was Kate McKinnon trying to do in this movie? Over the top cartoonish weirdness? That's it? Say random weird things?

Okay now I want to slap you with a dueling glove.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

\but I like the look of the ghosts

Now that I can't see eye to eye with. They were pretty generic glowy humans. I'm not saying they had to go full practical effects, but it would be nice if they made them more warped and monstrous. The other positives I agree with though.

[McAvoy]

\
What the hell was Kate McKinnon trying to do in this movie? Over the top cartoonish weirdness? That's it? Say random weird things?

Okay now I want to slap you with a dueling glove.

Men in tights style? I hit you with a gauntlet in response.

Was that Men in Tights? Feels like a Mel Brooks thing.

Anyway, yeah she was just way too weird for me. Like she dialed it past 10 to a 13 and then breaking the knob off and using pliers to go even higher.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

For me she's just perfect. Nail on the head, precision-targeted where I want her to be. It didn't feel jarring or off-putting for me because it all seemed to be consistent for her character.

[McAvoy]

For me she's just perfect. Nail on the head, precision-targeted where I want her to be. It didn't feel jarring or off-putting for me because it all seemed to be consistent for her character.

Does it? An explanation of why she is weird or not in the movie? There is a certain point where you go from realistic nerdy quirky engineer to just flat out erratic weird.

[Rocketboy1313]

For me she's just perfect. Nail on the head, precision-targeted where I want her to be. It didn't feel jarring or off-putting for me because it all seemed to be consistent for her character.

Does it? An explanation of why she is weird or not in the movie? There is a certain point where you go from realistic nerdy quirky engineer to just flat out erratic weird.

The movie is taking place in a heightened reality.
The tone it seems to be going for has more in common with something like "Boy Meets World" or "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt".
It is not about presenting a character that is down to earth or whatever, she is playing a cartoonish mad scientist.
You don't need an explanation for someone acting over the top in a world that is over the top. The Dean of the shitty college tries to play guitar on the news, Chris Harmsworth should be a ward of the state, this is not "reality".

[Mabus]

The behind the scenes info that has leaked since then (and before) shows that the whole film was a mess long before its inception.
The cameos of the original actors in the 2016 film are all bad jokes, it's pretty clear that no one wanted to appear in the film, and the only reason they were even in the film is because they were legally forced to. An exchange between Sony's legal team from the 2014 Sony Pictures hack, showed that Sony was considering suing Bill Murray if he refused to appear in the next installment in the GB franchise (which ended up being the 2016 film). And given that Murray in the film was clearly phoning in, yeah, he really didn't want to be there, nor in the promotional talk show appearances.
https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Mi ... 68651.html
While I highly doubt that Sony would have created the "misogynist basement dwellers" controversy after the trailer was released, I am absolutely certain that they piggybacked on the what it would have been just a minor controversy that would have fizzled out a few months later (which has happened in the past for other films) and astroturfed it to hell (there were multiple reports of many non-sexist critical comments being quickly removed and dozens of copy-pasted sexist comments appearing suddenly, all which stopped after the interest for the trailer dropped, with Sony quickly removing any bigoted and sexist comments, right now if you go to the YT trailer's comment section, people there still post ironic comments, but there are no sexist comments), turning it into a massive unnecessary scandal, probably in an effort to shift the attention of people from discussing the leaks in the event the film ends up a failure, tactic best known as "deadcatting", and probably to send an indirect message that they are willing to go to any lengths to undermine any "snitches". Sony execs must have thought that "Look, the film is clearly a piece of shit, a 144 million $ piece of shit, there's some bad publicity around it due to those damn leaks, and yes it's gonna bomb. But it's not our fault, it's someone else's."

Same Sony Pictures hacks revealed that Amy Pascal chose Paul Feig over Ivan Reitman, after she invited him to a dinner party at her house with everyone else involved in the reboot, except Reitman. The email even stated that Feig should not mention the dinner party when he met with Reitman the following day as he was the only person not invited. It was at this dinner party that Feig officially signed on to direct the reboot. So yeah, cryonism at its finest. Oh, and this one is really amusing, given that for the next GB reboot, Sony chose Ivan Reitman's son to direct the film. I guess Reitman Sr. is still not getting along with Sony, and they chose his son mainly for name recognition. There were also some rumors that Sony forced the cast and crew to sign additional NDAs, to avoid another Josh Trank situation, but I can't find the source for these two rumors for some reason.

Aykroyd later said in a later interview, that Feig had to reshoot some scenes that he originally didn't shoot because he preferred to allow the actors to ad-lib way too much, even though some of those scenes were really necessary, which didn't go well with the testing audiences because surprise, necessary scenes are necessary, which caused the film to go 30-40 mil. $ over budget due to reshoots.
https://www.slashfilm.com/551330/dan-ay ... -troubles/
Clearly the work of the International Secret Cabal of Misogynists. /s

It's hard for me to take a serious look at the film's flaws, when it's clear that no one there was interested in making a good film (or, given what Feig did, an actual film), it was all just a quick cash-grab and the studio further flexing its muscle over some past their prime actors. It would be like analyzing an Uwe Boll film, there's nothing to look at because he deliberately made his films awful to get tax breaks.

[Frustration]

The feminism didn't make the movie bad. The movie bad made the movie bad.

Actual feminism wouldn't have been a problem. The parody of feminism that seemed to be motivating the making of that movie WAS a problem. Janine, the secretary from Ghostbusters, wasn't stupid. She was a cynical and stressed woman whose deadpan acceptance of her crazy employers was a source of humor. The secretary guy from AtC? A buffoon who was hired as eye-candy.

Janine was quite attractive, but she was neither an idiot nor eye-candy.

It wasn't a good movie in practically every possible sense.

[Frustration]

Aliens is one of the best selling, most popular, beloved, famous films of all time. This is my default answer to the argument that men hate strong women.

I love strong women: Ripley, Delenn, Ivanova. Thing is, those are all well-developed characters, and they're genuinely strong in that they're not afraid to be weak or even feminine when appropriate.

I dislike "strong women" who try to dominate by screaming and intimidation, who don't listen to reason or others, and spend much of their time self-congratulating. Come to think of it, I don't like men who do those things either.