[GuyX]

As someone who has genuinely loved every Ghostbusters project released thus far, from the original to RGB, GB2, EGB and the 2009 video game, watching Answer The Call was like a punch in the gut.

I knew there was trouble from that infamous first trailer. But trailers aren’t the finished movie. This was Ghostbusters damn it! Paul Feig! He knew how to make comedies. His resume is outstanding.

I still can remember the feeling in the pit of my stomach when I realized this was going to be a rough ride. This wasn’t the dry wit done in wide shots of Ivan Reitman. Everything was choppy and cut to pieces. The opening scene got no laughs. Which would be fine. The original didn’t get any laughs either most likely but it also wasn’t trying to be funny.

Anyways I mention this just to say I felt BAD. I didn’t like something Ghostbusters! & it’s not just any small thing. This wasn’t a game or cartoon. It was a movie. Thee movie! The first since ‘89. & not only did I not like it, I liked nothing about it.

I felt like I was betraying something I loved by disliking it. Seriously. I was angry! @ myself for not being able to just let go & just enjoy it, @ Bill Murray for dragging his feet so long to allow this travesty to happen. What’s also weird is I worried, what if this movie is loved by audiences? Is this what Ghostbusters will be now? Something I don’t like?

Which isn’t a good place to be in. I don’t want to actively wish ppl not like something just so I can feel like I’m right. But This was Ghostbusters. Was this how Star Wars fans felt during the prequel era?

Christmas came & holy crap I didn’t even ask for a single piece of GB merch. I did not foresee that. Not the blu ray. Not the extended cut. I envied all those who liked this movie so much that even though I didn’t ask for the movie, friends/family know me so well it was gifted to me. I watched it again. & again. Then the extended cut. & it went from passively disliking the movie to starting to hate it. “Hate!?!” Me? Ghostbusters!? That shouldn’t be possible.

Now maybe many of u are thinking, Guy, so what? All the other GB movies still exist. Go watch those. But the fact that there was new Ghostbusters media out there and it wasn’t just bad but almost everything I loath about modern film and comedy? It was maddening. This isn’t ghostbusters! Did they not see? Could those who liked this really not see?

It started feeling like politics. U know when u have an opinion on something political but someone is so far & away opposite on it u start wondering how could they not see what u see? Sure people have different opinions but look! It’s all right there! Open ur eyes!

Then the teaser & announcement for GBA came & it all just passed. Now it feels all rather silly. And felt like it was all meant to be. Without ATC we don’t get the beauty of GBA.

Now it all feels like it was meant to be. This was how it was suppose to happen. & the mistakes of GBATC got us the amazing GBA.

So did anyone else feel like they were betraying something they loved by not liking the new movie? Did you try to force yourself to like it? Better yet, did u succeed?


Did GBA mellow out ur feelings & reaction to GBATC?

[prodestrian]

I don't really feel like rehashing my thoughts on ATC all over again. To summarise, I loved the cast, I'm still a Paul Feig fan, and I think a sequel could have had potential to be better than the first. I was all in.
But I'm happy the franchise is back in the classic universe now, because that's what I grew up on. I've enjoyed building a lot of the ATC tech too (pack and pke, ghost chipper and Trap coming later).

What I will say is that if you haven't listened to the Extraplasm podcast about the recent ATC screening and Q&A session it's worth checking out. Paul had a lot of interesting things to say about what went wrong during production (such as entire scenes being cut because of VFX issues) and how he was blindsided by the backlash because he kept getting told that their test audience scores were VERY high (if they weren't, Sony would have taken back creative control).

https://extraplasm.podbean.com/e/episod ... e-dippold/

[Kingpin]

Did GBA mellow out ur feelings & reaction to GBATC?

No, because I enjoyed Answer The Call in 2016 and I still enjoy it in addition to Afterlife.

[Davideverona]

What I really hate was the way Feig handled things in the pre production phase and that were revealed by the infamous Sony Mail Hacking. He tried to push away the original creators. That was enough, for me.

[timeware]

I liked ATC just fine but it was the politics that kept me from seeing it in the theatre. You aren't betraying the franchise by seeing ATC, it's it's own thing.

[One time]

I liked ATC just fine but it was the politics that kept me from seeing it in the theatre. You aren't betraying the franchise by seeing ATC, it's it's own thing.

Same. I think ATC really needs a fan edit. I didn't care for the politics in the film and some of the jokes, (the glasses one comes to mind), but I liked it overall. It's Ghostbusters afterall, and paved the way for what we are able to enjoy afterwards!

Most critics of ATC don't appreciate the lengths that production went through with its Easter Eggs and nods to the franchise. From all the GB1 nods down to the leylines being kind of Easter Eggs for the GBTVG mandala nodes.

Also ATC's production fleshed out the science of the proton packs to immense real world scientific detail (James Maxwell and Lindley Windslow). Which I really appreciate and enjoy. Check these links:

https://sciencevshollywood.com/intervie ... oton-pack/

https://sciencevshollywood.com/the-scie ... oton-pack/

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... entity=und

What I love about GB1 is that Reitman shot the comedy film like a serious drama documentary (wide angles, low framing). Hardly anyone laughs in GB1. That contrast was amazing. It drew you in. There was this little voice in your head that kept saying: "wait, is this real?, I can't tell, everyone is so serious". Everyone played it straight while the content of the movie was hilariously absurd. That's what made it timeless for me.

ATC felt more like an over the top comedy spoof, like Space Balls. It was shot and framed as a comedy, and all of the characters were caricatures. If you look carefully (apart from Erin and Abby) not a single character in the movie is a "normal" person. Down to the concert manager with his over the top girlish scream. The most ridiculous being Kevin Beckman, a character who always yanked me out of the movie.

Like Timeware says, if you see it as something "alongside" the originals then it's fine. It's also the only 3D Ghostbusters movie we have until now!

But I do agree with you as well. If ATC had marked the end of Ghostbusters movies (if it had been GB1, GB2 and ATC, and nothing else) I'd have been very sad. Because it wasn't a sequel but a reset. Like a parallel dimension Ghostbusters 1. Not the Ghostbusters 3 we were all waiting for for 30 years.

[RichardLess]

Why oh why did I have to read the title of this thread? You tryin to get me in trouble? Ah well. Here I go.

***CLEARS THROAT***

Did I feel like I was betraying something I loved? No

At the time I felt like THEY were betraying something *I*loved. But now I just realized they were making a movie and it’s really not all that dramatic or serious. I’ve got my two Ghostbusters movies. Im good.

But that doesn’t mean I still don’t look at this whole endeavour with a certain raised eyebrow.

This movie has no soul. It’s an empty flashy lowest common denominator DOA…thing. That’s me being kind.

I’m glad you have Afterlife to put things in perspective for you. I can relate to some of what you say. I was angry that this was what we got after that very long GB3 road. But I’ve made my peace with it. I can just accept it’s a bad movie.

Afterlife frustrated me for awhile because there was real potential there. ATC has no potential anywhere in its story or runtime. (The ghost machine is stupid, Ronan is a stupid villain, the relationship between the characters is forced, the cinematography is bad, the music is bad, the editing is sloppy, the acting is over the top & too broad. It’s an Adam Sandler movie, and not the Uncut Gems kind)

More than anything I was surprised at the GB fans who enjoyed ATC. I know there are some fans of movie or game franchises or rock bands or painters, who love the thing/person so much they won’t have a single criticisms or negative thought about it. Michael Jackson fans come to mind.

But..Bad movies have fans. That’s cool. Fine. I’m a fan of a few of them myself. i realize now it’s not my opinion ATC is bad movie. It’s a provable mathematical fact. Some movies are indisputably bad or great. There are movies I don’t like but I KNOW are great works of art. Tree of Life is an example. It just didn’t do it for me. Raging Bull? I know it’s great but I don’t like it. Same with movies are bad that I like. Batman & Robin? That is an indisputably bad movie. Indisputable. Jack & Jill? Provably bad.

Ghostbusters ATC is like that. I know that will bother some people. But facts are facts. Go watch the scene where Bill Murray bites it. Where they test the neutrona wand for the first time. These sequences are poorly staged, acted, shot, edited, scored.

Unfortunately I think the 2 out of the 3 people on the planet who knew how to make this franchise funny and work have passed away. They knew the secrets and until I see evidence of the contrary I believe they took those secrets to the grave.

[prodestrian]

Spent 25 minutes writing a lengthy reply only to realise I wasn't saying anything which hadn't already been said numerous times over the last 8 years, so rather than spin that wheel around again I'll just exit the conversation here.

[Chicken, He Clucked]

It was clear what we were getting when McCarthy - Feig were announced I just treated it as a fun non-canon reboot. I enjoyed it every time I watched it, the extended cut is better. Feig has made some great comedies so I knew what we were getting with that cast. It’s ultimately a slick looking (if mediocre) comedy with lots of Ghostbusters iconography. As a GB fan I’m fine with that, it didn’t deserve the culture war around it. But Amy Pascal was wrong to take the franchise away from Ivan.

My main criticisms are Dippold’s script is poor and there are lots of great improv moments in the deleted scenes you cannot cut into the movie due to continuity, which is frustrating. On top of this some of their “showpiece” gags fall flat.

So I don’t share many of the more reactionary complaints and I find them pretty tiresome. ATC is a fine & highly enjoyable alt-universe Ghostbusters. I also think it’s better than Extreme GB and fans have no problem with that show.

[Chicken, He Clucked]

I laughed in the cinema at the university guy making a raspberry and giving them the finger. it doesn’t work on rewatches but the first time it got me.

[RichardLess]

I laughed in the cinema at the university guy making a raspberry and giving them the finger. it doesn’t work on rewatches but the first time it got me.

For me It’s emblematic of the movie has a whole. They linger far too long, don’t get out of the scene quick enough. The joke , the real joke, is the guy says “suck it”. There should’ve been a hard cut right after that to them leaving the building. Then he does the snoop dog hizz-out thing.

Or the “Mike Hat” stuff or the “put the cat back in the bag”. These aren’t jokes that have anything to do with the movie. It’s random stuff that drags and drags. Randomness for the sake of it.

There’s a single joke in this movie that works and it’s due to the performance of the actor. Andy Garcia being incensed at the comparison to the Mayor in Jaws.

[Chicken, He Clucked]

For me It’s emblematic of the movie has a whole. They linger far too long, don’t get out of the scene quick enough. The joke , the real joke, is the guy says “suck it”. There should’ve been a hard cut right after that to them leaving the building. Then he does the snoop dog hizz-out thing.

Or the “Mike Hat” stuff or the “put the cat back in the bag”. These aren’t jokes that have anything to do with the movie. It’s random stuff that drags and drags. Randomness for the sake of it.

But that’s Feig and his cast’s approach to comedy and it worked successfully in other movies. I assure you a hard cut after “suck it” wouldn’t have been funny either.

It is impossible for comedy to be received well by an audience overanalysing and rooting against it. Eg Anchorman 2 - which had plenty of funny moments, but the audience was just rooting against it due to unrealistic expectation.

ATC is a Feig comedy with Ghostbusters set dressing. Lambasting it for not being a different type of comedy seems to be missing the point. The film was never aiming to be what the original Ghostbusters was.

There’s a single joke in this movie that works and it’s due to the performance of the actor. Andy Garcia being incensed at the comparison to the Mayor in Jaws.

That’s an ok joke, it’s a surprising to me it gets singled out. Leslie Jones’ “he’s the fifth scariest thing on that train” was the standout gag for me.

[Kingpin]

Leslie Jones’ “he’s the fifth scariest thing on that train” was the standout gag for me.

That and:
"Okay, yep. Room full of nightmares."

[RichardLess]

For me It’s emblematic of the movie has a whole. They linger far too long, don’t get out of the scene quick enough. The joke , the real joke, is the guy says “suck it”. There should’ve been a hard cut right after that to them leaving the building. Then he does the snoop dog hizz-out thing.

Or the “Mike Hat” stuff or the “put the cat back in the bag”. These aren’t jokes that have anything to do with the movie. It’s random stuff that drags and drags. Randomness for the sake of it.

But that’s Feig and his cast’s approach to comedy and it worked successfully in other movies. I assure you a hard cut after “suck it” wouldn’t have been funny either.

It is impossible for comedy to be received well by an audience overanalysing and rooting against it. Eg Anchorman 2 - which had plenty of funny moments, but the audience was just rooting against it due to unrealistic expectation.

ATC is a Feig comedy with Ghostbusters set dressing. Lambasting it for not being a different type of comedy seems to be missing the point. The film was never aiming to be what the original Ghostbusters was.

There’s a single joke in this movie that works and it’s due to the performance of the actor. Andy Garcia being incensed at the comparison to the Mayor in Jaws.

That’s an ok joke, it’s a surprising to me it gets singled out. Leslie Jones’ “he’s the fifth scariest thing on that train” was the standout gag for me.

It is an ok joke. But it’s the best this movies got. And it mostly worked because of performance. On paper it’s meh. But Andy Garcia getting so upset at being compared to a bad mayor in a pop culture touchstone works well because of how image conscious he is. It’s a decent character joke. And he delivers it well.

The 5th scariest thing on the train joke falls flat for me because…it wasn’t scary at all. Like at all.

And I think you’re misguided about the over analyzing thing. Sure we are doing that NOW. True. But as a movie plays a joke is either funny or it’s not. If you’re rooting against something I doubt you’re paying money to see it. That just seems like a bad excuse to me.

The movie is a Ghostbusters film dressed up as a Paul Fieg movie. That’s the problem. He isn’t right for this kind of film.

And let’s not pretend the man has a perfect track record. His best movie is one he didn’t write. His best piece of work has none of the hallmarks of his later work and was also done with a more talented & funnier co writer. And he’s not a very good director. A good director doesn’t allow that Bill Murray scene in his movie. Or the numerous other problems.

If you’re going to make a Ghostbusters movie don’t mess with what works. Don’t change the tone or style too much. If he was directing an Indiana Jones movie, would he make it like this with Indy riffing for seeming less endless periods? If he did that he’d be wrong. Just like he was here.

He should’ve changed his style to fit ghostbusters, not ghostbusters to fit his style. And if he wasn’t willing to do that, he’s the wrong man for the job. Which…he was.

[Chicken, He Clucked]

And let’s not pretend the man has a perfect track record. His best movie is one he didn’t write. His best piece of work has none of the hallmarks of his later work and was also done with a more talented & funnier co writer. And he’s not a very good director. A good director doesn’t allow that Bill Murray scene in his movie. Or the numerous other problems.

If you’re going to make a Ghostbusters movie don’t mess with what works. Don’t change the tone or style too much. If he was directing an Indiana Jones movie, would he make it like this with Indy riffing for seeming less endless periods? If he did that he’d be wrong. Just like he was here.

He should’ve changed his style to fit ghostbusters, not ghostbusters to fit his style. And if he wasn’t willing to do that, he’s the wrong man for the job. Which…he was.

Feig has a good filmography and great credentials working on many high tier TV shows including Mad Men. Film-wise one of his most successful is The Heat, which was another Dippold collab and personally I turned it off after 15 minutes. I blame Dippold.

But Bridesmaids, Spy, A Simple Favor, Last Christmas and ATC… that’s a very solid resume.

I agree nobody working on the movie should’ve signed off on that Murray cameo, it ‘s a low point. But making movies is a huge undertaking and I’m sure Feig was more aware than anyone of what did and didn’t work. If Bill Murray turns up and gives that performance, reluctantly, and you’re featuring cameos from the OG’s, you can’t really cut it once it’s in there. Presumably Bill was given two scenes because they banked on some Murray gold in there, but it didn’t materialise. And worse they tied his character to the plot progression. But that’s also because the type of comedy they were going for doesn’t really care about plot all that much, the long takes of character improv are why it exists and why Sony hired Feig.

[One time]

FWIW:

I actually like the "Extended edition" of ATC way more than the theatrical release. I watched it recently and a lot of the scenes are different. Erin's reply to the "monthly rent" at the firehouse... -> "F You" is hilarious, and a number of other gags are way funnier than the theatrical release.

Patty Tolan's character (my favorite, because she reminds me of what the "Ramsey" character (Eddie Murphy) would have been in Aykroyd's original Ghost Smashers script) really steals it in almost every scene she's in.

Her first encounter with the subway ghost is hilarious as she just stands there with an open mouth and then is like:
"F this I'm good,... later."

There's a lot of subtle funny humor in ATC that's easy to miss.

If you are basing your opinion of ATC on the theatrical release, give the extended edition a try,... it isn't a totally different movie, but it's different enough to be very noticeable.

[GuyX]

Leslie Jones’ “he’s the fifth scariest thing on that train” was the standout gag for me.

That and:
"Okay, yep. Room full of nightmares."

Someone enters a creepy room, says “Room full of nightmares”. that’s a standout gag? Do u laugh at that every time? Or did u mean the room itself?

For me this feels like a Kevin James or Adam Sandler movie. It’s more in the execution. If u that sort of movie? Okay.


But let’s forget about the comedy. The ghost machine. Does that work for u? Does Ronan work for u?

The whole movie I’m like “Ok. Ronan is a puppet working for a big bad. He’s following someone else orders”. That would’ve saved the movie somewhat. But he’s just some dude? Working solo?

There needed to be something bigger, something more. There’s no mythology here. Ghostbusters always had some sort of made up lore and mythology.

Afterlife and ATC are such a cool contrast on how to handle the same material in a 21t century context. The tone of afterlife is more underplayed or serious. Whereas ATC is in ur face, loud and obnoxious. Loud and obnoxious can work. Animal House. Blues Brothers. Airplane.

I think ATC is closer to what Ghostbusters might’ve been had John Landis directed instead of Reitman.

If u put ATC in front of an audience who had never seen OGB, I wonder what the diff would be to an audience that had seen it.

I’m coming across as judgemental & mean. I don’t wanna do that. I feel like Richardless has that covered. Obviously I think ATC is a terrible film. For so long I wished I could see it with fresh eyes but there’s nothing there for me.

I really think it’s an execution thing. All these people have been funny elsewhere. But they weirdly don’t have chemistry. The OGB has this amazing chemistry between them. You buy them as friends. This group, I don’t know what it is, the character arcs I guess, but they don’t have that laid back thing going on. It’s like there’s a tension.

[One time]

Does Ronan work for u?

The whole movie I’m like “Ok. Ronan is a puppet working for a big bad. He’s following someone else orders”. That would’ve saved the movie somewhat. But he’s just some dude? Working solo?

This links to the politics and insensitivity of ATC that threw a lot of people. With Rowan, like insinuating that people who have been bullied turn into lone wolf monsters or mass killers. People who are bullied deserve kindness, support and advice. They should never be ridiculed, stigmatized or ostracized.

Or: "Come get your virginity out of the lost and found". The Rowan scene where it's implied that lacking sexual experience is something to be ridiculed or to be ashamed of.

It's stuff like that which is jarring and could be fixed with a fan edit.

The Extended Edition ATC and the theatrical release really seem like different movies. I genuinely think that a fan edit of ATC Extended Edition that removes some of the rough edges would be a totally different movie experience.

Don't see ATC as the Ghostbusters sequel you've been waiting for for 35 years. It is it's own thing. I think it was a test by Sony to see what the interest level was in the franchise. Get a franchise with a (then) unknown modern appeal, get Pascal to open the floodgates to a whole additional customer base (Feig fans/females) by getting Feig to direct and featuring an exclusively female cast, and see what happens.

The PhD science of ATC I loved though, as mentioned above. Especially the trap that launches its own pedal back to the Ghostbuster triggered by a remote shoulder release. That stuff is creative genius. It makes so much sense. You'd roll your trap where it needed to be and -then- position the pedal back to you. As opposed to the reverse like in '84 where you first position your pedal and then roll the trap out away from it.

But on the whole I agree that Feig should have adapted his style to embrace "Ghostbusters" rather than forcing "Ghostbusters" to adapt to his style of movie making.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant. I reiterate: If you haven't done so, try the Extended Edition. It feels quite different.

[Kingpin]

That and:
"Okay, yep. Room full of nightmares."

Someone enters a creepy room, says “Room full of nightmares”. that’s a standout gag? Do u laugh at that every time? Or did u mean the room itself?

It was a combination of the visual of the nightmare room and Patty's complete rejection of the horror/ghost movie trope which made it so funny, to me at least.

The ghost machine. Does that work for u? Does Ronan work for u?

Sure. Real and Extreme Ghostbusters both dabbled with scientific equipment that was able to interact or influence with various ghosts on an episode-by-spisode basis so within the suspended-disbelief of an off-shoot Ghostbusters universe the devices amping up the local psychokinetic energy and the hauntings is reasonably plausible.

Likewise Rowan, someone lashing out at the world for rejecting him. Some of his depiction left a little to be desired, but his being a scorched-Earth sociopathy doesn't require a stretch of the imagination given the real-world ones we're seeing crop up in the news all the time.

Given we'd already had two movies where humans ended up being turned into puppets by Gozer and Vigo, it was a bit of narrative fresh air Answer The Call that this was all Rowan's doing, rather than the plot of some being pulling his strings from behind the scenes...

But he’s just some dude? Working solo?

Yep, because likewise in the real world we've seen plenty of lone-wolf domestic terrorists and criminals.

There’s no mythology here. Ghostbusters always had some sort of made up lore and mythology.

The Answer The Call team had only just started to lay the foundations of it's lore... Had they gotten further films I'm sure they would've expanded on it more.

It’s like there’s a tension.

Well, yeah... There's the strain to Abby and Erin's relationship, the stress from the mounting ghost hauntings before Rowan's death, then the sudden urgency from the realisation that his death hadn't stopped anything... And then the ramping danger as his plan kicks into the final staged.

Plus... The world is likely a lot more fast-paced and stressed-out than it was in 1984.

But on the whole I agree that Feig should have adapted his style to embrace "Ghostbusters" rather than forcing "Ghostbusters" to adapt to his style of movie making.

Not sure if forcing the director to conform to a style he's not comfortable with would've produced that much better a result... More like you'd probably just end up with a resentful director.

[GuyX]

The Answer The Call team had only just started to lay the foundations of it's lore... Had they gotten further films I'm sure they would've expanded on it more.

That’s not how u make a movie. U don’t save stuff for a sequel. U put everything you’ve got into it. That’s how so many blockbusters operate now and they are lesser for it. I can’t judge a movie we didn’t get. Only what we did

Sure. Real and Extreme Ghostbusters both dabbled with scientific equipment that was able to interact or influence with various ghosts on an episode-by-spisode basis so within the suspended-disbelief of an off-shoot Ghostbusters universe the devices amping up the local psychokinetic energy and the hauntings is reasonably plausible.

Likewise Rowan, someone lashing out at the world for rejecting him. Some of his depiction left a little to be desired, but his being a scorched-Earth sociopathy doesn't require a stretch of the imagination given the real-world ones we're seeing crop up in the news all the time.

Given we'd already had two movies where humans ended up being turned into puppets by Gozer and Vigo, it was a bit of narrative fresh air Answer The Call that this was all Rowan's doing, rather than the plot of some being pulling his strings from behind the scenes...

What works in a cartoon isn’t always going to work in a movie. Movies are bigger. Bigger scale. Bigger stakes.

Here’s the thing. Ultimately u have to stack up these movies against each other & compare. A movie that has the name “Ghostbusters” should be able to be in the same league. The same tone.

Rowan isn’t scary. He isn’t interesting. His plan isn’t fascinating & there’s no mythology involved. Especially compared to Gozer & Vigo

He’s a weak antagonist. Him being a pawn of some other force might be familiar but it’s better than him just being nothing. Whether or not this a realistic depiction of the sort ppl who become terrorist or mass shooters, it’s not interesting in a GB movie.

This is ghostbusters. We battle gods and demons…& Rowan? The amount of ideas out there for a big bad and this is what they chose? Kingpin. It just feels so underwhelming to me.

It might’ve been funny to have Rowan think he’s going to unleash this major world ending demon. This great power. And it turns out it’s some lame rinky dink spirit of some loser who tried sumthing similar in 1433. That might’ve been funny. The GB’s get ready to face this big bad after all this set up & it’s sum pimple faced no one just like Rowan from 1433.

To me a Ghostbusters movie is only as good as its villain. Rowan doesn’t even register. It’s a shame too cause it’s a cool name for a villain.

The actor doesn’t help much. An actor with awkwardness built in like Michael Cera or Jesse Eisenberg. That might work a bit better

Well, yeah... There's the strain to Abby and Erin's relationship, the stress from the mounting ghost hauntings before Rowan's death, then the sudden urgency from the realisation that his death hadn't stopped anything... And then the ramping danger as his plan kicks into the final staged.

Plus... The world is likely a lot more fast-paced and stressed-out than it was in 1984.

I want to spend time with Gb’s. I want to like them. The only likable GB was Patty. There’s no chemistry between these actors.

The problem is Melissa McCarthy. She’s miscast. You stick Tina Fey in that role? Amy Poehler?

Kingpin. I think that opens up the movie so much.

A female GB group of Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Kristen Wigg & Leslie Jones. You solve the f chemistry problem right then & there.

I reiterate: If you haven't done so, try the Extended Edition.

I have. It only adds to the problems. It’s way too long. No ghostbusters movie needs to be that long. I find it amplifies the issues.

I actually dislike the way the widescreen works in the movie there the proton streams exit the frame. It’s like breaking the 4th wall. It feels like a novelty.

[Chicken, He Clucked]

Rowan isn’t scary. He isn’t interesting. His plan isn’t fascinating & there’s no mythology involved. Especially compared to Gozer & Vigo

This is entirely the fault of Dippold’s script, not the cast, not Feig. Rowan was (half)baked in there.

It might’ve been funny to have Rowan think he’s going to unleash this major world ending demon. This great power. And it turns out it’s some lame rinky dink spirit of some loser who tried sumthing similar in 1433. That might’ve been funny.

Buffy did it already but yes that mightve been funny.

To me a Ghostbusters movie is only as good as its villain.

You’re thinking of Bond movies. The original Ghostbusters has mysterious goings on but it doesn’t have a villain until the last 15 mins.

Michael Cera or Jesse Eisenberg. That might work a bit better

No way actors of their ability and status would accept that role, but OK.

There’s no chemistry between these actors.

The problem is Melissa McCarthy. She’s miscast. You stick Tina Fey in that role? Amy Poehler?

A female GB group of Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Kristen Wigg & Leslie Jones. You solve the f chemistry problem right then & there.

If you get Tina Fey to WRITE the movie you may be on to something but otherwise no this wouldn’t solve anything.

[robbritton]

Rowan and Erin are mirrors of one another - Rowan believes his genius to be ignored and so seeks retribution, Erin believes hers to be underappreciated and so seeks approbation. It is telling that it is Abby who tries to talk Rowan round, as it is Abby who ultimately convinces Erin that the approbation she seeks is unimportant. The entire film is about accepting ones positives rather than hopelessly pursuing approval that will never come and will never be the reward you imagine.

Abby represents common sense and acceptance, while Holtzmann and Patty both represent absolute self-belief as its own end. They exist as examples to Erin of what could be if she stopped pursuing her doomed goal.

Rowan ultimately fails because he can't let his demons go, while Erin succeeds because she does.

So there you go, there's the narrative. All this talk of "provably bad movies" and my film studies geriatric behind can make a coherent narrative of it and a purpose behind the film in seconds. it's all there in the text. No one would claim it is Aguirre, Wrath of God levels of art, but the narrative works and the throughline works and the film objectively works. Additionally there is an entire audience for whom ATC was a great film - notably within queer and feminist communities, although also beyond - who never had a great interest in earlier Ghostbusters film. I know, because I attended multiple screenings with at least five of those people from the London band scene. It genuinely spoke to them and presented stuff you just don't see in a major studio film: unsexualised women, overweight characters whose weight is never an issue, queer characters whose sexuality just is, etc, etc - there were lots of think pieces about these things at the time after the film had been released and viewed by audiences. They weren't just knee-jerk reactions to the concept, but to the film itself. That is categorically not the case with Batman and Robin or Mac and Me or any other classic 'bad' film. Whatever our individual opinions of ATC, we can't deny those reactions or that they genuinely mattered to people. That's art affecting life, that's the best a film can ever do. That it wasn't for everyone? Well...

The important thing is that you (Guy X) absolutely shouldn't feel any sense of betrayal. It is perfectly OK for any of us to not like ANY piece of Ghostbusters media. The Other Side was terrible, Legion is pretty pants too, to be honest. The less said about RGB post The Hole in the Wall Gang the better. I don't need anyone to agree with me to know that I don't like those things, and you don't need anyone to agree with you about ATC to be comfortable about not liking it and confident in the reasons you have for not liking it. We should all accept our differences and focus on where we meet rather than hopelessly pursuing agreement that will never come and will never be the reward we imagine. Rather like the narrative of a certain film. eh?

[Bison256]

I don't quite get where you're coming from. You don't have to like every project to be a fan of franchise. I hate new Star Trek material. But I still love TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9.

[Kingpin]

That’s not how u make a movie. U don’t save stuff for a sequel.

Star Wars, James Bond, Austin Powers, Predator, Alien, Terminator and Indiana Jones all expanded their lore with each successive film (sometimes welcomed expansion, sometimes not).

Answer the Call's lore may not've filled an encyclopedia, but I thought there was enough given during Erin and Abby's revived high school presentation to give us an idea of things (though the expanded director's cut probably does the job even better if my memory serves me).

And if we're being objective here, Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II have been a little light on the world-building at times.

What works in a cartoon isn’t always going to work in a movie. Movies are bigger. Bigger scale. Bigger stakes.

The intended destruction of New York by an army of ghosts led by a vengeful sociopath isn't big enough on the threat scale?

And as for "what works in a cartoon", other live-action Ghostbusters movies have gotten a little cartoony at times...

Here’s the thing. Ultimately u have to stack up these movies against each other & compare.

This isn't the Oscars or the cinema hall of fame, I'd rather just enjoy the films, the characters and the tech in them rather than spending most of my time stacking them up against each other and comparing them.

Rowan isn’t scary. He isn’t interesting. His plan isn’t fascinating & there’s no mythology involved. Especially compared to Gozer & Vigo

I'm sure there are folks out there who'd say the same about Vigo, heck... You could even argue Gozer's plan is not very fascinating.

He’s a weak antagonist.

Walter Peck and Jack Hardemeyer didn't have supernatural powers, but they're still remembered for the roles they played in making things more difficult for the Ghostbusters in their respective films... Fair enough, they're not the primary antagonists, but I think they're proof enough you can have a human be the main antagonist without them being a pawn of some supernatural force. I'm not denying Rowan could've used a bit more fleshing out, but I don't think it was a bad idea for the human to be the big bad for a change.

Because again, the cartoons and comics gave us great examples of these: Walter Peck in his animated appearance, Alan Favish, Mr. Tummel, Clark Ashton, Lenny (the executor), The Great Calamari, Paul Smart, Garrett's antisemitic ex-friends from The True Face of a Monster, Edward Kirilian, Ron Alexander, etc.

Hell, the main events of Cold Cash and Hot Water get set into motion by Peter's Dad's greed/opportunism and Dr. Bassingame's incompetence, and the events of The Thing in Mrs. Faversham's Attic by the misguided, but well-intended actions of Mr. Faversham. People messing about with forces they can't understand have provided us with plenty of good stories over the years in and out of this franchise we love.

As Rob noted, Rowan is a (flawed) counter/contrast to Erin in the film... An exploration of the corruption of the very science she once had a passion for, and eventually rediscovered.

(And sidebar, I like the found family aspect of Answer The Call, true... Afterlife and now Frozen Empire will feature that as well, and you can even argue it was there in Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II... But I think the first time we saw it being a main feature of a Ghostbusters film at a time when a lot of people are now aware of the concept was when Abbey, Erin, Patty and Holtzmann came along in 2016).

It’s not interesting in a GB movie.

It depends on how it's executed.
I appreciate you didn't find Rowan interesting and that's fair... And I'll concede he wasn't a complex villain, but I did like the "in a mirror, darkly" kind of concept that Rowan presented.

This is ghostbusters. We battle gods and demons…& Rowan?

Rowan's not the best example, but some of the big obstacles the Ghostbusters have had to overcome came from mundane, human sources rather than the paranormal... What was good about the various cartoons and comics was that sometimes the guys were fighting gods and demons, and sometimes they were fighting smaller... But still dangerous threats.

To me a Ghostbusters movie is only as good as its villain.

The metric for me is how good are the character interactions and the Ghostbusting... But I'm not saying your metric isn't a worthy one, just not the one I go by.

An actor with awkwardness built in like Michael Cera

I can believe Cera can do awkward, but beyond that I don't view him as a good actor at all.

The problem is Melissa McCarthy. She’s miscast. You stick Tina Fey in that role? Amy Poehler?

I don't think Melissa was miscast, I think that for portions of the film she was misdirected... I would've liked to have seen more of the serious scientist Abby was/could be, rather than the moments when she got confrontational/combative.

I liked her for her enthusiasm when she was encountering real ghosts for the first time and seeing the proof of her and Erin's theories; when she got her nose stuck into the investigation like in the Subway and at the Stonebrook Theatre, because you could see the serious scientist she could be. And when they realise things in the city were getting worse, and she broke out her knowledge of ley lines as they pieced together Rowan's plan.

Melissa has ended up typecast with the loud, brash personality she's played in a lot of films, which is sadly present for more than a few scenes in Answer the Call... Which is a shame, as I think her serious work is far more endearing and praise-worthy.

A female GB group of Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Kristen Wigg & Leslie Jones.

I'm guessing you're not a Kate McKinnon/Holtzmann fan?
Fair enough if that's the case... I think she was one of the best parts of the film and wouldn't replace her for a "how could we improve it?" cast.

I actually dislike the way the widescreen works in the movie there the proton streams exit the frame. It’s like breaking the 4th wall. It feels like a novelty.

It was intended as some kind of "3D without the 3D glasses" gimmick... Which I suppose is kinda in-keeping given the original Ghostbusters DVD's silhouette audio commentary that never caught on.

[RichardLess]

Rowan and Erin are mirrors of one another - Rowan believes his genius to be ignored and so seeks retribution, Erin believes hers to be underappreciated and so seeks approbation. It is telling that it is Abby who tries to talk Rowan round, as it is Abby who ultimately convinces Erin that the approbation she seeks is unimportant. The entire film is about accepting ones positives rather than hopelessly pursuing approval that will never come and will never be the reward you imagine.

Abby represents common sense and acceptance, while Holtzmann and Patty both represent absolute self-belief as its own end. They exist as examples to Erin of what could be if she stopped pursuing her doomed goal.

Rowan ultimately fails because he can't let his demons go, while Erin succeeds because she does.

So there you go, there's the narrative. All this talk of "provably bad movies" and my film studies geriatric behind can make a coherent narrative of it and a purpose behind the film in seconds. it's all there in the text. No one would claim it is Aguirre, Wrath of God levels of art, but the narrative works and the throughline works and the film objectively works. Additionally there is an entire audience for whom ATC was a great film - notably within queer and feminist communities, although also beyond - who never had a great interest in earlier Ghostbusters film. I know, because I attended multiple screenings with at least five of those people from the London band scene. It genuinely spoke to them and presented stuff you just don't see in a major studio film: unsexualised women, overweight characters whose weight is never an issue, queer characters whose sexuality just is, etc, etc - there were lots of think pieces about these things at the time after the film had been released and viewed by audiences. They weren't just knee-jerk reactions to the concept, but to the film itself. That is categorically not the case with Batman and Robin or Mac and Me or any other classic 'bad' film. Whatever our individual opinions of ATC, we can't deny those reactions or that they genuinely mattered to people. That's art affecting life, that's the best a film can ever do. That it wasn't for everyone? Well...

The important thing is that you (Guy X) absolutely shouldn't feel any sense of betrayal. It is perfectly OK for any of us to not like ANY piece of Ghostbusters media. The Other Side was terrible, Legion is pretty pants too, to be honest. The less said about RGB post The Hole in the Wall Gang the better. I don't need anyone to agree with me to know that I don't like those things, and you don't need anyone to agree with you about ATC to be comfortable about not liking it and confident in the reasons you have for not liking it. We should all accept our differences and focus on where we meet rather than hopelessly pursuing agreement that will never come and will never be the reward we imagine. Rather like the narrative of a certain film. eh?

You realize you can quantify any film narrative that way. That doesn’t mean it’s good. You could easily do that with The Room or Jack & Jill or Batman & Robin.

Want me to do Batman and Robin? Okay. (Deep breath)

Batman & Robin revolves around the importance of family, teamwork, and overcoming personal conflicts. It also explores the idea of redemption and the consequences of one's actions.

Throughout the movie Robin is constantly coming up against being the Shadow in Batman’s limelight. This is the younger brother constantly trying to prove himself over his older more experienced family member

The two main villains represent the harsh unforgiving sides of Mother Nature. Growth warmth, light and eternal cold/darkness.
Where as their henchman Bain represents man’s worse tendencies. Mindless brute strength used to hurt and destroy other human beings on the whims of others. Always obeying never questioning.

Poison Ivy loves only her plants and nature. In other words, herself. Where as Mr. Freeze his redemption lies within his wife. His family. His last remaining touchstone to his humanity. His heart. While Robin finds his own purpose in that same familial bond. His surrogate brother.

Ultimately Mr Freeze, a man of science, is redeemed when he sees the literal light of the sun, the opposite of his plan to blanket the world in a forever world of frozen darkness. This is the opposite of Robin who craves the artificial light of a signal, its hollowness, artificiality and impurity revealed to him as a beacon in the sky. A simulacrum of his spirit animal.

In the end family wins the day, as Mr. freeze, seeing the literal light, gives Batman a cure for Mcgregors Syndrome, a frozen Prometheus who rather than giving fire, gives medicine in the new day sun. This cures Batman & Robin’s surrogate father Alfred as Batman & Robin reveal themselves for who they really are. Family. Brothers in arms.

Also? Cold puns! Lots and lots of cold puns

(Exhales). I didn’t even need to attend film studies for that!

Ultimately ATC fails as a film. It’s not funny. It’s not interesting. It’s a far lesser version of something better.

It’s the EXECUTION that makes it like an Adam Sandler movie.

Someone PM’d me saying they felt like I was insulting people who like this movie. Which I found interesting. Nobody likes to be told they like a bad movie.

One day I’m confident you’ll see it. You’ll be watching Melissa McCarthy mug that camera as she corkscrews on that proton beam and say “Shit. This movie IS bad. That arrogant ass on GBfans was right”.

Oh and fellas just as an aside I was kidding when I said the movie was provably bad. Exaggerating. I can’t prove anything is bad. Not GBATC, not Jack and Jill and not Nickelback. Each has their fans. They are wrong. But that’s the way it is.

Also if you don’t think there aren’t think pieces-a plenty on Batman & Robin and the homoeroticism, BDSM and Drag Queen style of some of it, oh boy. Do I have news for you! That movie has inspired many a think piece.

I’d bet Batman & Robin has a far larger LGBTQ fanbase that Ghostbusters 2016.

Does that make it good? No. That would be ridiculous.

[GuyX]

Star Wars, James Bond, Austin Powers, Predator, Alien, Terminator and Indiana Jones all expanded their lore with each successive film (sometimes welcomed expansion, sometimes not).

U r misunderstanding. Me saying the movie has no lore, & u saying “But the sequel”. No. Yes u can & should expand lore in sequels. But u make the best movie u can bcuz god only knows if u get a 2nd chance. Don’t save ur best ideas for the sequel. U use them on the movie in front of u. The movie lacks in the lore & mythology department. Saying the sequel would’ve fixed that(maybe) doesn’t do anything to help the movie now does it?

Answer the Call's lore may not've filled an encyclopedia, but I thought there was enough given during Erin and Abby's revived high school presentation to give us an idea of things (though the expanded director's cut probably does the job even better if my memory serves me).

And if we're being objective here, Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II have been a little light on the world-building at times.

Kingpin. Kingpin. Being objective? Light on world building?

Plz allow me to refute ur claim:

Tobins spirit guide? Magicians Marauders & Mad Men? PKE? Proton Pack? Ecto 1? Zuul/Vinz? Keymaster? Gatekeeper? Choose the form of the destructor? Ivo Shandor? Gozer the Traveler? Vigo, “Death is but a door time is but a window”, Scoleri Bros—“tried them for murder gave them the chair”, Mood slime, crossing the streams, trapping ghosts, Ecto Containment Unit, Van Horn, negative human emotions affecting the environment, season of evil, “world will end on New Year’s Eve”, “he was a very powerful magician, and a genius many ways” “he was also a genocidal mad man”.

That’s just some of the world building, lore & mythology that add to the tapestry of the film. I’d say let’s compare it to GB2016 but beyond the opening ghost history & mention of lay-lines, most of it is recycled of the original.

The intended destruction of New York by an army of ghosts led by a vengeful sociopath isn't big enough on the threat scale?

And as for "what works in a cartoon", other live-action Ghostbusters movies have gotten a little cartoony at times...

Rowan isn’t treated seriously. He’s not a threat. He’s treated as a joke. @ no point is he scary or *suppose to be scary*. There’s no Dana in the chair scene here. No fire in the dark room.

Did Ghostbusters start with the Stay Puft Marshmallow man? The Statue of Liberty? No. They worked their way up to em.

I believe that was Ivan Reitman’s plan. He knew if he brought the audience along, they would eventually buy into the super out there ideas. And let’s not forget…they r JOKES.

GB16 starts off with that machine thing. It’s a lame idea. Not a joke but a plot device.Had it been an object with occult or arcane abilities then that’s something more interesting.

It was intended as some kind of "3D without the 3D glasses" gimmick... Which I suppose is kinda in-keeping given the original Ghostbusters DVD's silhouette audio commentary that never caught on.

My grandma use to have a saying. “Grasping @ straws”. I feel ur grasping @ straws with this 1

Those 2 things aren’t remotely the same. The GB2016 effect is part of the movie. I can’t turn it off as part of a special feature. Listening 2 the commentary means u aren’t in the suspension of disbelief of the movie. U r choosing 2 listen to something not within the films reality.


It’s not that I don’t like Holtzmann. I don’t actively dislike her. I just find her a big zip. Nothing. It’s an archetype she’s playing. “The mad scientist”. She’s more an example of what’s wrong with the movie. All the characters r the same & lose their character traits, except Patty, when they start improving. U see the actor come up & the character disappear. Patty is the only 1 who keeps that character showing 24/7. Sorry. Chris Hemsworth and Leslie Jones. But Kevin is so overplayed there’s nothing there.

Also, off topic if u can’t tell from my picture. I actually unironically like Batman Forever & Batman & Robin. Richardless, try watching Batman & Robin as a campy comedy. Like the 1960s TV show. It’s so much fun.

[Kingpin]

Kingpin. Kingpin. Being objective? Light on world building?

Ghosts From Our Past, The Aldridge Mansion, Gertrude Aldridge, the murdered servants, P.K.E., Proton Pack, Ecto-1, the barrier, ley lines, charging the lines, the vortex, Rowan, the government being aware in the background of the existance of ghosts, the government having its own parallel investigation into the Rowan's plot, the Subway ghost, the assorted ghosts of Times Square, trapping ghosts, testing and refining the equipment, Containment Unit, Rebecca Gorin, Erin's dead neighbour being the motivation for her looking into the paranormal, Erin and Abby being friends since school and sharing an interest in the paranormal, The Mercado being one of the most haunted buildings in New York, the massacre between the Lenape and Captain Warren...

The lore and world-building are all there.

most of it is recycled of the original.

Then surely we should discredit the original Ghostbusters for it borrowing stuff from previous paranormal films, and from comedies like Abbott and Costello? Every film borrows from previous ones, and being a reboot of the Ghostbusters concept it's understandable that Paul brought the most familiar stuff over... Sure, he could've ditched it all for something completely bespoke, but I'm glad he didn't, because he gave us things I felt were interesting reinterpretations of the familiar gear.

Rowan isn’t treated seriously.

Many real-world threats aren't until they end up escalating.

There’s no Dana in the chair scene here. No fire in the dark room.

The tour guide getting attacked by Gertrude Aldridge, Patty seeing the subway ghost for the first time, the team seeing the Subway ghost and testing the first generation Proton Pack and nearly getting killed by the subway train, Mayhem throwing the singer into the amps, Mayhem getting released from the Trap and throwing Martin Heiss through the window, Rowan possessing Abby and attacking Patty and Holtzmann...

They worked their way up to em.

And the 2016 film built up to it's climax.

GB16 starts off with that machine thing. It’s a lame idea.

I'm calling bullshit on that.

The concept of Rowan's devices are no more "lame" than the "Tripod Traps", the Proton Packs, P.K.E.s, Giga Meters or Slime Blowers... It's something that would work in the context of the films set in the '80s continuity and I'm willing to bet had the concept of devices like Rowan's appeared in Ghostbusters or Ghostbusters II first, you'd have been perfectly accepting of them.

Not a joke but a plot device.Had it been an object with occult or arcane abilities then that’s something more interesting.

They weren't a joke, though... Nothing about the devices in the film was presented as comedic or lacking gravity, and why is the concept behind them so unbelievable in the world of Ghostbusters?

My grandma use to have a saying. “Grasping @ straws”. I feel ur grasping @ straws with this 1

...But that's what it was intended to be:

Using a dynamic frame break effect, you will see proton streams and ghosts leap off the screen! I have to tell you folks that this is the most incredible part of this whole release. Slime, ghosts, proton energy beams and more completely disregard the black letterbox aspect ratio bars for a three-dimensional experience like I have never seen on any home media format. This is all without any glasses too. It literally breaks the laws of physics how incredible and sensational this one looks!

-SOURCE

Those 2 things aren’t remotely the same.

I'm never said they were the same... I said (maybe poorly) that they were both efforts to increase viewer immersion that weren't adopted by the wider home-release industry.

[robbritton]

Rowan and Erin are mirrors of one another - Rowan believes his genius to be ignored and so seeks retribution, Erin believes hers to be underappreciated and so seeks approbation. It is telling that it is Abby who tries to talk Rowan round, as it is Abby who ultimately convinces Erin that the approbation she seeks is unimportant. The entire film is about accepting ones positives rather than hopelessly pursuing approval that will never come and will never be the reward you imagine.

Abby represents common sense and acceptance, while Holtzmann and Patty both represent absolute self-belief as its own end. They exist as examples to Erin of what could be if she stopped pursuing her doomed goal.

Rowan ultimately fails because he can't let his demons go, while Erin succeeds because she does.

So there you go, there's the narrative. All this talk of "provably bad movies" and my film studies geriatric behind can make a coherent narrative of it and a purpose behind the film in seconds. it's all there in the text. No one would claim it is Aguirre, Wrath of God levels of art, but the narrative works and the throughline works and the film objectively works. Additionally there is an entire audience for whom ATC was a great film - notably within queer and feminist communities, although also beyond - who never had a great interest in earlier Ghostbusters film. I know, because I attended multiple screenings with at least five of those people from the London band scene. It genuinely spoke to them and presented stuff you just don't see in a major studio film: unsexualised women, overweight characters whose weight is never an issue, queer characters whose sexuality just is, etc, etc - there were lots of think pieces about these things at the time after the film had been released and viewed by audiences. They weren't just knee-jerk reactions to the concept, but to the film itself. That is categorically not the case with Batman and Robin or Mac and Me or any other classic 'bad' film. Whatever our individual opinions of ATC, we can't deny those reactions or that they genuinely mattered to people. That's art affecting life, that's the best a film can ever do. That it wasn't for everyone? Well...

The important thing is that you (Guy X) absolutely shouldn't feel any sense of betrayal. It is perfectly OK for any of us to not like ANY piece of Ghostbusters media. The Other Side was terrible, Legion is pretty pants too, to be honest. The less said about RGB post The Hole in the Wall Gang the better. I don't need anyone to agree with me to know that I don't like those things, and you don't need anyone to agree with you about ATC to be comfortable about not liking it and confident in the reasons you have for not liking it. We should all accept our differences and focus on where we meet rather than hopelessly pursuing agreement that will never come and will never be the reward we imagine. Rather like the narrative of a certain film. eh?

You realize you can quantify any film narrative that way. That doesn’t mean it’s good. You could easily do that with The Room or Jack & Jill or Batman & Robin.

Want me to do Batman and Robin? Okay. (Deep breath)

Batman & Robin revolves around the importance of family, teamwork, and overcoming personal conflicts. It also explores the idea of redemption and the consequences of one's actions.

Throughout the movie Robin is constantly coming up against being the Shadow in Batman’s limelight. This is the younger brother constantly trying to prove himself over his older more experienced family member

The two main villains represent the harsh unforgiving sides of Mother Nature. Growth warmth, light and eternal cold/darkness.
Where as their henchman Bain represents man’s worse tendencies. Mindless brute strength used to hurt and destroy other human beings on the whims of others. Always obeying never questioning.

Poison Ivy loves only her plants and nature. In other words, herself. Where as Mr. Freeze his redemption lies within his wife. His family. His last remaining touchstone to his humanity. His heart. While Robin finds his own purpose in that same familial bond. His surrogate brother.

Ultimately Mr Freeze, a man of science, is redeemed when he sees the literal light of the sun, the opposite of his plan to blanket the world in a forever world of frozen darkness. This is the opposite of Robin who craves the artificial light of a signal, its hollowness, artificiality and impurity revealed to him as a beacon in the sky. A simulacrum of his spirit animal.

In the end family wins the day, as Mr. freeze, seeing the literal light, gives Batman a cure for Mcgregors Syndrome, a frozen Prometheus who rather than giving fire, gives medicine in the new day sun. This cures Batman & Robin’s surrogate father Alfred as Batman & Robin reveal themselves for who they really are. Family. Brothers in arms.

Also? Cold puns! Lots and lots of cold puns

(Exhales). I didn’t even need to attend film studies for that!

Ultimately ATC fails as a film. It’s not funny. It’s not interesting. It’s a far lesser version of something better.

It’s the EXECUTION that makes it like an Adam Sandler movie.

Someone PM’d me saying they felt like I was insulting people who like this movie. Which I found interesting. Nobody likes to be told they like a bad movie.

One day I’m confident you’ll see it. You’ll be watching Melissa McCarthy mug that camera as she corkscrews on that proton beam and say “Shit. This movie IS bad. That arrogant ass on GBfans was right”.

Oh and fellas just as an aside I was kidding when I said the movie was provably bad. Exaggerating. I can’t prove anything is bad. Not GBATC, not Jack and Jill and not Nickelback. Each has their fans. They are wrong. But that’s the way it is.

Also if you don’t think there aren’t think pieces-a plenty on Batman & Robin and the homoeroticism, BDSM and Drag Queen style of some of it, oh boy. Do I have news for you! That movie has inspired many a think piece.

I’d bet Batman & Robin has a far larger LGBTQ fanbase that Ghostbusters 2016.

Does that make it good? No. That would be ridiculous.

Well there you go - I have to concede that there's more to Batman and Robin than I thought. That's 100% one to you.

I promise you man, I will never see ATC the way you see it. I'm not waiting for scales to fall from my eyes, I haven't built up a theoretical wall I'm desperate to pin it on, and I've had far too many rodeos to pretend I like something for the sake of franchise loyalty (I'm looking at you Alien Resurrection and AVPR!). I just genuinely love it and find it an enjoyable film and a strong one too. It's a no-lose situation for me!

This is the important bit, though - that absolutely doesn't mean I don't respect your position on it. I'll argue my position on it, but I never mean to say that I believe you are wrong in yours - I just see it differently is all.

Hey, we both love Ghostbusters II in a world that loves to claim that that sequel was a disaster, so that's always something we could share a metaphorical beer on!

[RichardLess]

Well there you go - I have to concede that there's more to Batman and Robin than I thought. That's 100% one to you.

I promise you man, I will never see ATC the way you see it. I'm not waiting for scales to fall from my eyes, I haven't built up a theoretical wall I'm desperate to pin it on, and I've had far too many rodeos to pretend I like something for the sake of franchise loyalty (I'm looking at you Alien Resurrection and AVPR!). I just genuinely love it and find it an enjoyable film and a strong one too. It's a no-lose situation for me!

This is the important bit, though - that absolutely doesn't mean I don't respect your position on it. I'll argue my position on it, but I never mean to say that I believe you are wrong in yours - I just see it differently is all.

Hey, we both love Ghostbusters II in a world that loves to claim that that sequel was a disaster, so that's always something we could share a metaphorical beer on!

I do love me a good metaphorical beer. Cheers on that. First rounds on me.

You know what it is? What gets me with all this? We both love the first two GB films. We can both recognize the great comedy, characters and ideas.

But we are so far apart on this other one. Which is fair. Everyone loves their own thing. But you’d think two people who recognize the same quality in 2 films in the same franchise would see the same faults or quality in the other one.

You know what it might be. I WANT and NEED Ghostbusters to be this one thing. Where as you and other fans are open to Ghostbusters being whatever it can be. Whatever shape that takes. Vastly different styles and ideas. That’s okay with you.

It’s like fans of a band or singer when they change up their style. It’s like. No! no! That was working! It worked great! You were a good Radiohead-like band don’t try to be Maroon 5.

Though I’m not opposed to GB changing it style. I just haven’t seen it work.

It’s also insanely hard to match or top Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ivan Reitman in their prime.

And as much as I tried to watch this movie with an open mind. From day 1 I was against remaking or rebooting in whatever form that took. Some movies are untouchable. Or should be. I don’t want to see a rebooted Indiana Jones or Back to the Future. Ghostbusters is the same thing.

At one point it made me angry more fans weren’t upset at that. That Ghostbusters wasn’t as sacrosanct to them. But then it became a culture war with the far right wing faction of society being against the same thing, and who wants to be seen supporting what those jerks stand for?

[tylergfoster]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular position, but of course, when the 2016 movie was first announced and the negative reaction to it started, I felt like the fans were the ones betraying the things I loved, with so many (none of whom are here, for the record) revealing themselves to be immature, awful people. I saw one guy on Twitter acting like he had to -- like he had to, truly did not have a choice not to -- say that Patton Oswalt deserved to have his wife die because he Tweeted that he liked the film. (I hope that guy feels bad now that Patton's in the sequels, and it's ruining them for him -- he doesn't deserve to like the movies they've made since.)

One thing that people do do on this forum, which is fine but I will always object to, is the nonsense that "we" waited 30 years for a sequel. No group is a monolith, and Ghostbusters fans are no different. This is the movie I've seen the highest number of times and know the most about, but I am also a general film critic and read and know lots about the industry, so to me it was not that surprising, the idea that Ghostbusters might get remade instead of a sequel, especially since just ten years ago, it seemed very hard to imagine Murray would change his mind and agree to be in one. Although Dan kept talking, I had largely concluded that it was vaporware until proven otherwise in about 2010. The guys all seemed pretty old and nobody seemed to have an especially great idea, and I personally wasn't that enthused about a torch-passing movie. So when I heard that Feig was doing it, and he was doing a reboot with a female cast, I was excited because I'd really enjoyed Bridesmaids, and my enthusiasm increased when I saw Spy. I also really didn't want there to be any retroactive connection to the original movie because I felt that undermined the new characters who deserved to be the first and only Ghostbusters in their separate take on the series.

Another thing that I'm not in lockstep with many on is the belief that nothing is sacrosanct. There is no piece of art that is so great that it should not be reworked, reimagined, played around with, changed. I wish we lived in a world where public domain actually operated the way it's supposed to work and we got something more inspired out of something like Winnie the Pooh and "Steamboat Willie" entering the public domain than half-assed horror movies. I want to see new and different and divergent takes on Ghostbusters that take everything that worked in the original and turn that stuff entirely on its head.

I will also go so far as to say it was fine to push Ivan into the backseat. I don't mean to denigrate the man, but there have certainly been stories about how he was not always the nicest person on set. If I had been making Ghostbusters (2016), I would have wanted his advice, no question, and Dan's, but I would also have wanted to be absolutely certain that they could not veto my decisions if I wanted to do something they didn't agree with. No artist, any artist, wants to be in the position of being the big boss of a project while also having to answer to someone below them, and in this case, Ivan as the producer does not and should not have outranked Feig. It doesn't help my appraisal of whether or not Ivan should have been listened to having gotten the strong impression that Ivan's biggest want was to tie the movie to the originals. You don't have to like Feig to understand that he signed on precisely because he could make his own Ghostbusters universe unrelated to the original -- that was the one essential choice that convinced him to agree. So to have a backseat driver come in and say, "well, maybe we can change that one thing" is understandably ridiculous. I also have to note that it sounds like some of the things that bugged me about Afterlife came from Ivan, so...not saying I don't love the way he made the original movie, but this wasn't that movie, so, it was essential that he cede control to the guy who was actually making it.

Some things I will acknowledge are true: I definitely wish the movie were funnier. I think it is funny, but it's definitely less funny than Bridesmaids, The Heat, or Spy. I think the movie ought to have been written with stronger character work for the four Ghostbusters, to make them distinct and give the scenes a dynamic like the original movie has. I also think Feig trusted the test scores way too blindly, and that he should have left more of the story backbone that can be found in the deleted scenes in the movie. I have always wanted to do a fan edit, and I edited something recently that made me think maybe it was possible, but it would certainly take a long time, and there would be things I want to do and don't know how to do. I wish Feig had cut the dance sequence entirely in favor of the longer battle of Times Square, and there are little things that I wish were tightened up here and there* to make the movie feel more thought out overall. Still, I like the characters, I like the new equipment, I like many of the jokes, and I like the slightly heightened look of the movie and the ghosts, which to me captures the vibe of Ghostbusters while also being a new and different take on it.

*

One big idea that I would have contributed based on the movie as it is now is to have Rowan's portal in the Mercado pulling the world back to the Dark Ages, like a time portal, and so the interior of the Mercado could've looked like the 1920s or something, and then outside it's New York in the 1970s, and one could say the Thanksgiving Parade just traveled out of the time portal with the Pilgrims and stuff. As it is, I like the look of all of it but it's totally arbitrary.

This Post Contains Spoilers