Sign in to follow this  
Cleinhun

Ghostbusters (2016)

Recommended Posts

My problem with that Ghostbusters trailer was that the jokes felt like the sort of jokes I would expect from a comedy movie in 2016, which are not the sort of jokes I would expect from a ghostbusters. If it was an original property it might look kind of interesting, but I don't think it's association with Ghostbusters is doing it any favors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the most worrying thing to me in that trailer is that it exposes the idea that they apparently gave their white female leads all advanced science backgrounds of some sort and the black woman is given the "street knowledge" role.

 

You really couldn't have flipped it so you didn't fall into that trope?  If you want to create a split and say something about practical vs theoretical knowledge, you couldn't have made the black character one of your science background characters?

 

It might not be that bad in the movie, hopefully, but the way that trailer is playing it is troubling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the most worrying thing to me in that trailer is that it exposes the idea that they apparently gave their white female leads all advanced science backgrounds of some sort and the black woman is given the "street knowledge" role.

 

You really couldn't have flipped it so you didn't fall into that trope?  If you want to create a split and say something about practical vs theoretical knowledge, you couldn't have made the black character one of your science background characters?

 

It might not be that bad in the movie, hopefully, but the way that trailer is playing it is troubling.

 

You know what would have been a good solution to that?

two black actresses

 

Physically impossible, I know, but I can dream, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's the one thing that bugged me about the trailer.

 

Everything else was great, tho, y'all be hatin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think given that the plink plunk is paired with some stupidly dramatic text which is then followed up by a scene that ends with Kristen Wiig getting slimed, the editor of the trailer is using the plink plink in a way that is intended to be overbearing. You get an intentionally bad nostalgia play, followed up by the actual nostalgia play of a funny person getting covered in goop.

 

I don't really buy it. It feels way too earnest, and they have to know how beloved this property is. The sliming doesn't feel like a reversal of cheap nostalgia, it just seems like a continuation of it. The whole idea of this obligatory sliming kind of annoys me, considering the entire joke of "He slimed me." was that slime wasn't a verb.

 

I will grant you that it's possible that they may have been trying to have their cake and eat it too, but I don't think they succeed. But whatever, initial trailers don't need to be good. They just need to sell you on tone. I am just tired of the infantilizing way they do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fan-edit of that trailer (basically cuts as much annoying crap as possible):

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fan-edit of that trailer (basically cuts as much annoying crap as possible):

Much better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghostbusters: it made me feel good. It was a funny, not particularly great film that clearly loves Ghostbusters, still managed to do its own thing and sports some delightfully charming comedy. After all the extoplasmic vile barfed over it by angry neckbeards across the internet, hey, guess what, it turned out to be a swell movie that hopefully will get a sequel with the same crew. I'm ready to believe them - err see them bustin' again in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Ghostbusters again this evening, this time with my gf, and I'd like to update my earlier warm recommendation into straight-out enthusiasm. It's even better the second time around. I wasn't quite as bothered with the pacing issues and paid no heed to the wafer thin plot - instead I just marvelled at how joyous and fun this movie is. If you need something that recaptures the joy of blockbuster cinema, look no further. It has so many strange delights. Just looking at Kate McKinnon's face as it morphs throughout the movie is so, so good. Impeccably weird, it's like nothing else. The last time I saw a performance like that - albeit in a completely different tone and register - it was Heath Ledger's Joker.

 

bhdkys.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ready for some Bustin', but looks like I'll have to wait two weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be really happy if I enjoy Bustin', but after that trailer I just don't see it happening.

 

I just binged the Preacher series on Amazon - it's really good. The considered pacing sometimes threatens to tip over to slow, and some of the accents wobble occasionally, but it's generally really fun, atmospheric stuff. It reminded me of Utopia or the first season Breaking Bad. Really hope we get some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Ghostbusters again this evening, this time with my gf, and I'd like to update my earlier warm recommendation into straight-out enthusiasm. It's even better the second time around. I wasn't quite as bothered with the pacing issues and paid no heed to the wafer thin plot - instead I just marvelled at how joyous and fun this movie is. If you need something that recaptures the joy of blockbuster cinema, look no further. It has so many strange delights. Just looking at Kate McKinnon's face as it morphs throughout the movie is so, so good. Impeccably weird, it's like nothing else. The last time I saw a performance like that - albeit in a completely different tone and register - it was Heath Ledger's Joker.

 

bhdkys.gif

 

:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:

 

I kinda wanna go watch it again right away, which I never, never want to do with a movie I just watched.  I don't want to overhype it, but man did I have fun.

 

I'll try to type up some more coherent thoughts on why tomorrow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep thinking about Ghostbusters today, and particularly about the two primary male characters, Chris Hemsworth as the receptionist and the villain.  Spoilering the rest, and the entire existence of another character.  

Helmsworth as Kevin I think can be viewed as a couple of ones.  You could, as I've seen people do, claim that he's a "sexist" male version of the vapid, dumb woman receptionist hired for her looks.  But I think there's another way to view him, which is as a walking, talking version of the obliviousness of others experience that a lot of white guys have.  It never occurs to him that he's wildly unqualified for the job he applies for (which is not a high qualification job).  This repeats, when he insists he's a Ghostbuster now to, donning the gear and uniform while having done none of the work or had none of the experiences the four women have had.  And finally, when he's released from his possession and has a chance to contribute, he blithely wanders off to sate his own hunger rather than seeing if there is any way he could help.

Rowan damn near seems like a walking red pill reddit thread.  He's an angry, narcissistic man who believes the world owes him something, and if the world isn't going to give it to him, he'll just burn it down instead.  He builds his work on the backs of others while convincing himself he's solely responsible for his genius.  He gives people the creeps wherever he goes, the film goes out of its way to show that it's his standard modus operandi (the otherwise unnecessary cafe scene shows that even waitresses are unnerved waiting on him).  In a different world, he's one of the anti-sarkeesian documentary guys, talking into a webcam about his theories on culture with a bunch of skulls and other hot topic shit decorating his shitty apartment in the background.  

The two characters are different sides of the same coin.  Both are narcissistic, but where Kevin has gotten a whole lot out of life thanks to his looks and strength while Rowan feels denied the things the world owes him.  Rowan even acknowledges the difference in experience somewhat while occupying Kevin's body.

I think the same male narcissism shows up in the character Bill Murray plays, who wanders into the Ghostbusters home and workspace, demanding his wants and curiosities be met without having done anything to have earned their trust in him, and in fact having acted in such a way as to directly undermine them.  And yet he still feels radically entitled to have direct access to their work.  

Given the several direct nods the movie gives to the kind of harassment and doubt that women have to put up with in the world and the workplace, I don't think the themes of male narcissism and entitlement are accidental in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting analysis, Bjorn. I had not considered the men in such a light before, past seeing Rowan as a deluded soul and Kevin as a slightly worrying one. Kevin is fun as long as he doesn't get it into his head that he's a Ghostbuster. As soon as that happens in the film, I start to dislike him. Indeed from a sense of: what the hell have you done, except associate yourself with the crew?

 

Bill Murray's character serves the dual purpose of being both incredibly obnoxious (in the way you described) and allowing Erin to cross the bridge of doing something recklessly dangerous out of her fear of not being taken seriously, her desire to be acknowledged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting analysis, Bjorn. I had not considered the men in such a light before, past seeing Rowan as a deluded soul and Kevin as a slightly worrying one. Kevin is fun as long as he doesn't get it into his head that he's a Ghostbuster. As soon as that happens in the film, I start to dislike him. Indeed from a sense of: what the hell have you done, except associate yourself with the crew?

 

Bill Murray's character serves the dual purpose of being both incredibly obnoxious (in the way you described) and allowing Erin to cross the bridge of doing something recklessly dangerous out of her fear of not being taken seriously, her desire to be acknowledged.

 

On the second half of your spoiler:

 

The lady thought that whole scene was really forced, because she couldn't understand while Erin went ahead and popped the trap, and I think it felt like that to her because the important scene of setting Erin's haunting as a child doesn't happen until later. Erin has desperately wanted someone to believe her about ghosts. Without that character development, it feels more out of character in the moment.

 

Also, another random compliment to give the movie.  There's the now nearly compulsory after-credits scene that any movie that wants to be an on going franchise has, except that they made the whole rest of the credits entertaining!  Including little character bits during the first portion of the credits and then an entire deleted scene that runs behind the rest of the credits.  The entire audience we were in stayed until the final scene, because the credits themselves were so good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"helmsworth" lol

 

(it's hemsworth)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, another random compliment to give the movie.  There's the now nearly compulsory after-credits scene that any movie that wants to be an on going franchise has, except that they made the whole rest of the credits entertaining!  Including little character bits during the first portion of the credits and then an entire deleted scene that runs behind the rest of the credits.  The entire audience we were in stayed until the final scene, because the credits themselves were so good. 

 

Yes, the credits were a lot of fun.

 

I'm not sure I liked the post-credit inclusion of Zuul. On the one hand it seemed like an innocent gag, but if they really do plan on bringing back Zuul/Gozer, in a 'Moriarty' kind of way, which is to say as the ultimate villain the Ghosbusters necessarily have to face... maybe that's a little too leaning on past things for my tastes. I was hoping they'd set out to do their own thing from here on out, but it seems they're planning the Khan the shit out of this. Maybe.

 

If there's a sequel in the first place. The box office of Ghostbusters is doing just fine. Sony is happy. GB is obviously meant as a tentpole franchise for them, Ghost Corp was never intented just to produce one film. The question is whether it's this team that's returning (I fervently hope so) or if they'll spin off into different areas (the rumored Guybusters). Feig has so far said nothing about a sequel. In an interview with Deadline Hollywood he said the whole team first wants to take a breather before figuring out what's next. It seems safe to say Sony will want more, but I'd only want it if it's done with the same amount of love and (comic) creativity as this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the credits were a lot of fun.

 

I'm not sure I liked the post-credit inclusion of Zuul. On the one hand it seemed like an innocent gag, but if they really do plan on bringing back Zuul/Gozer, in a 'Moriarty' kind of way, which is to say as the ultimate villain the Ghosbusters necessarily have to face... maybe that's a little too leaning on past things for my tastes. I was hoping they'd set out to do their own thing from here on out, but it seems they're planning the Khan the shit out of this. Maybe.

 

If there's a sequel in the first place. The box office of Ghostbusters is doing just fine. Sony is happy. GB is obviously meant as a tentpole franchise for them, Ghost Corp was never intented just to produce one film. The question is whether it's this team that's returning (I fervently hope so) or if they'll spin off into different areas (the rumored Guybusters). Feig has so far said nothing about a sequel. In an interview with Deadline Hollywood he said the whole team first wants to take a breather before figuring out what's next. It seems safe to say Sony will want more, but I'd only want it if it's done with the same amount of love and (comic) creativity as this one.

 

On your spoiler:

 

Whether it's a cute nod, or whether it's the actual plan for the second movie, I think I'm okay with either.  Part of which I'll get to in some non-spoiler commentary.  One thing I think is interesting about the post credits scene is that it's Patty who is reviewing the tape, it shows that character becoming a part of not just the ghostbuster fighting side, but the research and science side as well.  One of the criticisms of Patty was that "why does the only non-white character the only non-scientist as well", which I think is possibly valuable criticism.  But on the flip side, anyone can do science.  Science is about process, not what degrees you have. 

 

I'm a lot less interested in a Guybuster team after having seen this team in action.  I'd much, much, much rather see the resources put into this group making another movie than making a sequel/spinoff without them.  This was essentially an origin story, and I'd enjoy seeing these characters have a chance to grow and develop over another movie. 

 

 

 

On another topic, I went back and watched the original 1984 Ghostbusters last night, which I last rewatched probably 7-8 years ago.  And ugggghhhhhhh, fuck have my views changed on it.  It's a product of it's time, but that time is really fucking not good.  The first scene with Peter going to Dana's apartment to inspect it is creepy and rapey as fuck, in a way that I hadn't really noted before.  A friend of mine recently had a washing machine repairman to her home to fix her broken washer, and he was asking questions like, "Are you married?"  "Oh, you're not, do you live here alone?"  Which mirrors the questions that Peter was asking Dana.  It spooked her really fucking bad.  And watching Sigourney Weaver's face during that scene, that's exactly how she's reacting.  Spooked as fuck.  And then Peter starts professing his love, refusing to leave when she gets exasperated and demands he leaves, blocks her from closing the door on him.  They literally just met like an hour ago. But then, the next time she sees Peter, she agrees to a date with him.  It's wildly incongruous.  And the thing of it is, Creepy Peter is wholly unnecessary to the film.  Every scene works just fine, including Possessed Dana coming on to him, without Peter being creepily obsessed with her.  In fact, the Possessed Dana scene might work better in the context of her and Peter having only had professional interactions up to that point.  Even Louis, Dana's other stalker, feels extraneous to the story.  And the movie isn't nearly as funny as I remember.  Yeah, I've seen it multiple times in my life, so there's no surprising humor, but the jokes just aren't even there.  Most of the jokes are "heh" vs "LOL".  The back half of the movie is so, so, so much better than the front half. 

 

Which is why if a theoretical sequel decided to retread some of the actual ground of the first movie, I'd actually be totes okay with that.  Because if you strip out Louis and the creepy romantic sublots, you gain about a tenth or more of the movie back that you can spend with other stuff.  Gozer and its early minions could feature as more important elements to the story, rather than suddenly appearing and being explained predominantly in the final 15 minutes of the movie. 

 

I think I'll watch Ghostbusters 2 some time this week, and now I really want to go back and watch the new Ghostbusters again.  I'm coming around to thinking that the new one is just flat better than the originals, in more or less every way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap Bjorn. I haven't seen Ghostbusters in about 5 years either, so I now shudder to think it might actually be that way. It had cemented itself in my head as a comedy classic, but maybe that's also nostalgia talking. I'll most likely rewatch the movies in the coming weeks. I'm curious if my opinions will have changed afterwards as well.

 

I remember Ghostbusters 2 as a terrible film by the way. One filled with super iconic images and genuinely frightening stuff, but structurally and in terms of script writing pretty awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be really happy if I enjoy Bustin', but after that trailer I just don't see it happening.

Did you see the second trailer (not the fan-made edit) that was basically the same but muuuch better edited. I still enjoyed the first trailer, but that second trailer really sold me on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like Ghostbusters presents Venkman as some guy to look up to. The movie knows and shows he's a creep from the first scene he's in. He's just not beyond redemption (he refrains from being actually rapey with the possessed Dana). I don't think it's as bad historically as you say, because we still get protagonists in films who act like creeps but their actions are presented as being A-OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see the second trailer (not the fan-made edit) that was basically the same but muuuch better edited. I still enjoyed the first trailer, but that second trailer really sold me on it.

 

I hadn't seen that. It is a little better, it generally makes it look a bit cooler, but all the jokes fall flat for me and there's still some Scooby-Doo 2 Monsters Unleashed level shit in there. Also I guess

 

possessed Chris Hemsworth is the lead villain

 

which I wasn't aware of before.

 

The original is an absolute classic. Hilarious, and manages to have a loose improv feel while having a load of great effects sequences and some genuinely scary moments. I'm with brkl on the Venkman thing.

 

Intrigued about Stranger Things, will try that out at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like Ghostbusters presents Venkman as some guy to look up to. The movie knows and shows he's a creep from the first scene he's in. He's just not beyond redemption (he refrains from being actually rapey with the possessed Dana). I don't think it's as bad historically as you say, because we still get protagonists in films who act like creeps but their actions are presented as being A-OK.

 

I would disagree with choosing not to rape someone as being a form of redemption.  Redemption implies going above and beyond the call to me, not living up to the most basic human standards.  Plus it's just basic self preservation as well, fucking a person who's currently possessed by the agent of an ancient Sumerian god who is clearly on some sort of mission is probably a terrible idea.

I'm not sure what the movie or the actor/director intent with Venkman was, but I actually don't think he was intended to be seen as a the level of creep he actually is, and that he was intended to be looked up to as the character who drives the team forward.  He's the decider, he gets everyone else moving forward.  He's obviously supposed to be seen as flawed, but not fatally so.  

I usually find Dr. Nerdlove to be a really smart and thoughtful writer about the intersection of sex and geeks, but I was curious if anyone had written about different ways to view Venkman, and came across Nerdlove not only defending, but arguing in favor of Venkman as role model.  

 

Why? Because at his core, Peter Venkman’s a gentleman. Yeah, he’s unapologetic about what he wants, but he also doesn’t want to push people to the point of being uncomfortable. When Dana turns him down and asks him to leave, he does; he may do so in a uniquely Venkman manner, but he does respect her “no”. He understands that it’s much easier to turn a “no” into a genuine “yes” through being a cool, charismatic guy and giving it another try later on. Pushing her,  nagging her would turn that “no” to a “hell no”, not a “yes”.

A "uniquely Venkman manner" is to refuse to leave and force a woman to physically drive him out of her home after it's been made clear he's not welcome and that she's uncomfortable.  

The comments in that Nerdlove article are clearly in opposition to the Doc's view on Venkman, but it can show how a combination of Venkman's behavior being normalized plus Murray's inherent charm combine to make some people actually think he is a character to look up to.  

I guess I'm coming at this from a perspective of having watched this every few years starting with in the theater at age 7 all the way to now at 39 (which, an idea formed at that age can take many years to re-evaluate in my experience because of how formative they are and how hard they stick).  And I started off seeing Venkman as the cool fun guy, and that view has just steadily degraded as I've watched it and aged, to the point that my view of the character has reversed about as radically as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this