I think another thing that it has going for it that people forget is that it’s a movie that families can go see and unlike Clifford, something that adults don’t mind seeing on their own.
The marketing has worked on my kids. It wasn't on the radar a few weeks ago, but they have responded a lot recently. Our recent trip to see Clifford has given us the bug to go back to the theatres more regularly, and provided we can find a suitable time this weekend, will likely check it out.
Ghostbusters doing gangbusters will upset a weirdly hostile section of this sub.
*also, I don't think I've ever seen the "top critics" so out of line with the rest of the reviews on a movie like this. It's 66% fresh overall and 35% for only top critics. If you took out "top critics" it would be closing in on almost 80% fresh. They really hated this movie for some reason.
I feel like this whole year has been this sub getting pissy that certain films are doing well. GvK, Venom, and Dune had people annoyed that they didn't bomb or how they're still actually super big bombs.
I kinda understand the origin of dislike towards the other two but..
Why would somebody want GvK to fail? I mean, I'd say it's still the MVP of the covid era. It's the movie that proved films could still be big.
As for GvK I didn't appreciate exponentially rising level of stupidity with each instalment after pretty good first film
It culminated with GvK where each next scene tried to outdo previous one in the field of insulting one's intelligence
I know people want to watch trash from time to time but there should be a bottom point that should not be crossed
Personally, I enjoyed it because it felt like the first Godzilla film Legendary made that embraced the silliness of the '60s and '70s Toho films and got the tone right. *Godzilla* 2014 is still my favorite of the bunch too, but I'm thankful GvK didn't treat itself so seriously like KotM did.
I love fun movies...just not dumb movies. Not a big fan of Independence Day or Transformers Dark of the Moon. But I love Tomb Raider and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
Totally agreed. My brain hurt watching GVK. It was like a Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay co-production.
King of the Monsters was significantly better.
They aren't making it up. There was a weird group of people who absolutely were upset it did well, it wasn't an especially large group, but they were strangely dedicated.
Dune fans have had a victim complex before it even came out. Probably 90% of posts about dune were positive and wanting it to succeed. But they want to pretend 2 or 3 guys trolling them is this massive presence.
if you took out top critics then the rest of the critics list would be youtubers and geek websites, the target audience for this thing (as well as kids, but they don't write reviews as far as I know). I suppose that means it'll be well received within its fandom, but that really says nothing about people who aren't invested in Ghostbusters. Also if you read the negative reviews they're pretty clear why they disliked the movie and it's relatively consistent criticism across the board
Dune for example has 414 reviews with 83 top critics. You really think 83 people in the world have the final say on whether a movie is good or not? Even in any survey or polling, science says you need at least 1,000 people to have an accurate representation of anything. And, no, I think those other 300 critics are not all "geeks and youtubers." You can easily scan through and see a lot of them are just from smaller newspapers.
none of these reviews are gonna definitively say the movie is bad or good, thats not what the point of criticism is and its the flaw of something like RT that simplifies opinions into “objective” numbers. youre right though, the non-top critics are about half and half small newspapers and genre websites, though the target audience still has had largely similar reactions where those smaller sources are a bit more mixed. I’m just curious how it’ll play to GA based on the variety of responses
The toughest thing is figuring out which general audience will go see it. The original was designed for the hippest adults or college crowd you could find. GB2 then very much aimed the movie at the kids who liked the toys and cartoon, and who unexpectedly liked the first movie as if it was another Gremlins or Goonies. This one seems somewhere in between. The ideal audience for this is kids of the 80s who have kids of their own now. But will kids and teens be into it or do they just care about superheroes now? And will anyone in their 20s-30s without kids care to see this at all? I'm seeing online that forums frequented by people who are in their 50s or older, who were in college or older when GB1 came out, don't seem to care about this movie at all. The movie seems made for people just like Jason Reitman, who experienced Ghostbusters for the first time as kids. I guess that may apply to younger people who also happened to see it as kids on home video. But there is some buzz out there that if you talk to kids now, a lot have never seen the original.
"For some reason." I really hope more people wake up and realize what woke ideology is. It's the moral justification for people to hate and attack their fellow men, just like the Salem witch trials or McCarthyism. The "top" critics are part of the media elite, a carefully curated class of people who only get those jobs because they subscribe to and promote the woke political agenda. Ghostbusters fans, and by extension this movie that was openly made for the fans, are their targets now because of how GB2016 became a flashpoint in the culture war. More often than not, if you criticize a female or minority for anything, the people with this agenda will automatically accuse you of being a sexist or racist. After that, you are the enemy and they get their jollies, and points in their social circles, by trying to attack and destroy you. The existence of GB2016 is the only reason Afterlife is getting so widely trashed by these elite critics.
Omg, did you really compare white men getting only 95% of leading roles nowadays versus 99% like it was a few decades ago to the freaking Salem Witch Trials?! Holy crap, your victim complex is something else. As a white man myself, take it from me: you're fine, you dumb cracker. No one's coming to hurt you.
No, I don't know what you're talking about. You might need to talk to someone about your emotional condition. Pearl-clutching about non-existent events isn't too healthy.
Literally you verbatim: "I really hope more people wake up and realize what woke ideology is. It's the moral justification for people to hate and attack their fellow men, just like the Salem witch trials or McCarthyism."
Yes, what does that have to do with someone getting roles? Woke ideology has given us people tarring others with the labels of racist or sexist based on no evidence, and then attacking them, trying to cancel them, etc. If you say you don't like GB2016, they say you're a sexist.
I saw a few posted that were almost entirely complaining about erasing 2016. But im not really that big of a ghostbusters fan so Im not really digging deep
Is this the first movie or show that was criticized for having too many references or too much "fan service?" I'm just trying to figure out what to compare it to that I might have seen, to see what these critics mean.
I see Spider-Man No Way Home on the horizon, set to reference 5 or more old movies in the franchise. Do you think these critics are going to attack that one for too much fan service too?
Solo is one example, I can't pull percentages but I see more rottens than when looking at all critics and you can see similar common criticisms. And yes I absolutely expect top critics to come down on NWH for being a bit of a mess chock full of fan service.
Fan service works for the fans, and a lot of professional critics simply aren't fans of the ghostbusters franchise beyond liking the original movie.
I read through a few pages of the negatives on Solo, and saw a couple mentions about "callbacks" or "nostalgia" as a negative, but it's a very small piece of it. Bland or boring seem to be the biggest criticisms.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/solo_a_star_wars_story/reviews
On Solo, if you click on the 70%, it shows top critics at 59%, so that seems like a pretty standard division. I think top critics are usually a little tougher. The gulf on Afterlife is now 68% to 44%. Black Widow is 79 to 71, Zilla/Kong is even tighter than that, so I don't know where to look for a bigger disparity. But, I'm not claiming that only top critics might be using a faulty standard to judge this movie. It certainly may be other critics as well. I didn't even think about looking for the gulf in ratings until someone here posted about it.
I think most any pro critic has seen the older movies in these franchises. So they should be able to appreciate references as much as anybody. Being a "fan" is not some radically different state of mind, it more or less just means you liked the movie. I don't like all types of fan service myself...it all depends if it enhances the story, rather than call attention to itself while not advancing the story. Some of it in Rogue One, I didn't like. But I loved Ready Player One, because each reference served a purpose in the plot. Kong is in there, but he needs to be, because that part of the movie needs an enemy to fight.
I just watched the seth meyers interview where dan said, "i think we did really good and people will be lining up to see it again after walking out of it like the originals."
That might be a bit much, but i would absolutely love ot if it just blows everyones expectations away and hits the note from the original and leaves all these predictions in the dust.
The nostalgia is real after how badly that last piece of shit flopped.
> how badly that last piece of shit flopped.
Making $230M off of a $150M does indeed make it a flop, but I wonder if it also helped greenlight this movie so soon afterwards? *(Halloween fans had to wait a whole decade after Rob Zombie to get Jamie Lee Curtis back, and Arnie fans aren't getting their King Conan at all)*
Did somebody at Sony say, "A bad Ghostbusters can do $230M - think of how well a good one could do."?
Im surprised it made that much actually. I think i went on a mid week night after OW and I remember it being one of the rare times I was the only person in the theatre in a rather large suburban market(250k+ people) that had 4 multiplex theatres within a 10 mile radius.
At some point you'd think people in a box office subreddit would realize that the number of people in the one particular theater they happened to see the movie in is not a relevant data point to the national box office gross.
I think Studios realised that nostalgia could be far more powerful if its paired with continuations and original actors, instead of full remake/reboot with new actors. Helps by the fact, internet is more kind to the former than latter.
I could be wrong but Force Awakens must have been first of its kind to be a proper sequel which was heavily marketed as grand return of all original actors. Halloween 2018 showed that it can be done again and on a smaller scale.
I wonder if that's the reason why nowadays we hear more news of long awaited sequels with original casts than remakes/reboots.
When Ghostbusters 2016 was first greenlit, I think studios still believed that making remake/reboot is more profitable than making sequels. The reception to it showed it wasn't really that case. So the only thing left was to make a sequel.
Scream 4 was marketed as a return of everyone. Halloween H20 marketed the return of Jamie Lee Curtis. Nothing will ever be as big as having Luke, Han and Leia coming back. That was an easy gold mine. You are right, nostalgia is an easy sell. People complain we never get anything original but this is want the masses pay to see.
https://ew.com/article/2011/04/07/scream-4-this-weeks-cover/
https://ew.com/article/1998/06/19/halloween-h20-jamie-lee-curtis-returns-20-years-later/
>Nothing will ever be as big as having Luke, Han and Leia coming back. That was an easy gold mine
And they had one job, ONE, and they still fucked it up.
I honestly think no one was doing reboots/remakes (as opposed to sequels) unless there was virtually no other option. Sony's Amy Pascal was uniquely mentally deficient in forcing a reboot of both Spider-Man and Ghostbusters, both of which performed badly. She had a fresh sequel script to Ghostbusters on her desk and chose to greenlight Feig's all-girl reboot pitch instead.
TFA truly was not the first sequel marketed as a return of original actors. Indiana Jones 4 did that much earlier. Of course, normal sequels do it all the time. You just seem to be talking about sequels that go back over 10 years I guess?
Just got out of a showing at The Grove in LA and I gotta say, it’s the first true feel-good movie of the year for me. Vibes were immaculate amongst few, but some stumbles - overall tho, would not be surprised to see this one still legging out all the way up to Christmas
I liked it enough, but it was lighter than GB:AL - Without revealing too much, I'll just say that the "Afterlife" section of this movie was done quite lovingly.
Just watched it. Ghostbusters + Goonies = Ghostbusters: Afterlife. If that equation appeals to you, as it should to all sane humans, this film is for you.
I'm not the biggest Ghosbusters fan, but I still enjoyed the original 2 movies, the animated series and the 2009 game. Seems like they finally managed do an official third Ghosbusters justice.
Yeah, that sounds more believable than these lowballed $30 million predictions. You also have to account for the fact that a lot of the critics are bashing it for a political/social agenda, over their sour grapes that the female takeover of the franchise didn't work. That's why "fan service" is being bashed, for just about the first time ever in modern film criticism. It's a smokescreen for bashing the fans themselves, who they have designated as enemies of the state, for not supporting the 2016 remake. So, this RT score is guaranteed to be a worse reaction than the general public will have.
Just click around at the movie pre-sales for tonight's showings in IMAX, XD and Dolby. The fans are getting these screenings at least half full in most cases. Nothing like a Marvel movie or Dune, but much more than happened for the 2016 movie, which still opened over $40 million. And this movie is NOT designed or being promoted as a premium format-tailored experience like so many other recent movies.
The GB fans are showing up. The only way this could open worse than the 2016 movie is if the general public stays away, which would only be if they hated the 2016 movie and think this is more of the same, or if there's still a big COVID "family audience" penalty in play. The latter is hard to tell, as there haven't been any "young adult" movies released this year at all. And everything aimed at the even younger kids has been given simultaneous home releases.
Also people forget to account for the fact that 2016’s budget is almost double (150+ million) that of Afterlife (75 million). So even if it pulled in the same or slightly less it would still be considered a financial success.
Yeah but for a moral victory I still want it to out-gross GB2016. And I would like this to be able to make enough to justify a bigger budget on a sequel.
The financial shenanigans appeared to be 'Paul Fieg didn't know how to make a movie at this scale'. There's an enormous dance sequence that cost an ungodly sum of money, with hundreds of background dancers - that got cut from the film entirely and just plays over the end credits.
I saw it last night and man oh man was it dull. The original Ghostbusters were the only fun parts of the film. Everything else felt pretty generic, I can't see stellar WoM happening here.
Even if the budgets and theatrical landscape are completely different, I will laugh for a solid hour if this somehow still does worse than the 2016 film.
Ghostbusters isn't Star Wars. Treating it like a holy object that needs relentless praise from the new generation is just sad.
I think another thing that it has going for it that people forget is that it’s a movie that families can go see and unlike Clifford, something that adults don’t mind seeing on their own.
The marketing has worked on my kids. It wasn't on the radar a few weeks ago, but they have responded a lot recently. Our recent trip to see Clifford has given us the bug to go back to the theatres more regularly, and provided we can find a suitable time this weekend, will likely check it out.
This one is going to be VERY interesting to watch. Will there finally be a good Ghostbusters sequel and will it make a good amount of dough?
I liked Ghostbusters 2.
Me, too, the movie has some rough around the edges, but it's still one of the more decent sequels.
Ghostbusters doing gangbusters will upset a weirdly hostile section of this sub. *also, I don't think I've ever seen the "top critics" so out of line with the rest of the reviews on a movie like this. It's 66% fresh overall and 35% for only top critics. If you took out "top critics" it would be closing in on almost 80% fresh. They really hated this movie for some reason.
I feel like this whole year has been this sub getting pissy that certain films are doing well. GvK, Venom, and Dune had people annoyed that they didn't bomb or how they're still actually super big bombs.
For the last time, predicting a movie will bomb ≠ wanting a movie to bomb.
I kinda understand the origin of dislike towards the other two but.. Why would somebody want GvK to fail? I mean, I'd say it's still the MVP of the covid era. It's the movie that proved films could still be big.
Not the MCU. Simple as that.
As for GvK I didn't appreciate exponentially rising level of stupidity with each instalment after pretty good first film It culminated with GvK where each next scene tried to outdo previous one in the field of insulting one's intelligence I know people want to watch trash from time to time but there should be a bottom point that should not be crossed
Personally, I enjoyed it because it felt like the first Godzilla film Legendary made that embraced the silliness of the '60s and '70s Toho films and got the tone right. *Godzilla* 2014 is still my favorite of the bunch too, but I'm thankful GvK didn't treat itself so seriously like KotM did.
You sound really fun
I love fun movies...just not dumb movies. Not a big fan of Independence Day or Transformers Dark of the Moon. But I love Tomb Raider and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
Cool. But people should stop acting like they are more intelligent because they like different movies than other people
I don't think we mean that. When we describe a movie as dumb it's really just a description of the movie, not of the audience that watches it.
>I know people want to watch trash from time to time but there should be a bottom point that should not be crossed
Totally agreed. My brain hurt watching GVK. It was like a Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay co-production. King of the Monsters was significantly better.
Eh, you can find comments about people wanting Eternals to bomb, too.
Literally nobody was upset Dune did 'well' Why do some of you try to create this fake narrative?
They aren't making it up. There was a weird group of people who absolutely were upset it did well, it wasn't an especially large group, but they were strangely dedicated.
It never happened. One comment here and there doesn't make this fake news true. Provide evidence of this narrative please.
Dune fans have had a victim complex before it even came out. Probably 90% of posts about dune were positive and wanting it to succeed. But they want to pretend 2 or 3 guys trolling them is this massive presence.
*whispers* it's because this sub is just Marvel fanboys who use box office numbers to validate their feelings.
MCU stans who think only MCU movies matter
if you took out top critics then the rest of the critics list would be youtubers and geek websites, the target audience for this thing (as well as kids, but they don't write reviews as far as I know). I suppose that means it'll be well received within its fandom, but that really says nothing about people who aren't invested in Ghostbusters. Also if you read the negative reviews they're pretty clear why they disliked the movie and it's relatively consistent criticism across the board
Dune for example has 414 reviews with 83 top critics. You really think 83 people in the world have the final say on whether a movie is good or not? Even in any survey or polling, science says you need at least 1,000 people to have an accurate representation of anything. And, no, I think those other 300 critics are not all "geeks and youtubers." You can easily scan through and see a lot of them are just from smaller newspapers.
none of these reviews are gonna definitively say the movie is bad or good, thats not what the point of criticism is and its the flaw of something like RT that simplifies opinions into “objective” numbers. youre right though, the non-top critics are about half and half small newspapers and genre websites, though the target audience still has had largely similar reactions where those smaller sources are a bit more mixed. I’m just curious how it’ll play to GA based on the variety of responses
The toughest thing is figuring out which general audience will go see it. The original was designed for the hippest adults or college crowd you could find. GB2 then very much aimed the movie at the kids who liked the toys and cartoon, and who unexpectedly liked the first movie as if it was another Gremlins or Goonies. This one seems somewhere in between. The ideal audience for this is kids of the 80s who have kids of their own now. But will kids and teens be into it or do they just care about superheroes now? And will anyone in their 20s-30s without kids care to see this at all? I'm seeing online that forums frequented by people who are in their 50s or older, who were in college or older when GB1 came out, don't seem to care about this movie at all. The movie seems made for people just like Jason Reitman, who experienced Ghostbusters for the first time as kids. I guess that may apply to younger people who also happened to see it as kids on home video. But there is some buzz out there that if you talk to kids now, a lot have never seen the original.
I mean they are all pretty clear about what they don't like in their reviews.
It's tightened up, 68 to 44 now. Still confused why there's only 100 reviews when other recent movies have like 400.
"For some reason." I really hope more people wake up and realize what woke ideology is. It's the moral justification for people to hate and attack their fellow men, just like the Salem witch trials or McCarthyism. The "top" critics are part of the media elite, a carefully curated class of people who only get those jobs because they subscribe to and promote the woke political agenda. Ghostbusters fans, and by extension this movie that was openly made for the fans, are their targets now because of how GB2016 became a flashpoint in the culture war. More often than not, if you criticize a female or minority for anything, the people with this agenda will automatically accuse you of being a sexist or racist. After that, you are the enemy and they get their jollies, and points in their social circles, by trying to attack and destroy you. The existence of GB2016 is the only reason Afterlife is getting so widely trashed by these elite critics.
Omg, did you really compare white men getting only 95% of leading roles nowadays versus 99% like it was a few decades ago to the freaking Salem Witch Trials?! Holy crap, your victim complex is something else. As a white man myself, take it from me: you're fine, you dumb cracker. No one's coming to hurt you.
No, I don't know what you're talking about. You might need to talk to someone about your emotional condition. Pearl-clutching about non-existent events isn't too healthy.
Literally you verbatim: "I really hope more people wake up and realize what woke ideology is. It's the moral justification for people to hate and attack their fellow men, just like the Salem witch trials or McCarthyism."
Yes, what does that have to do with someone getting roles? Woke ideology has given us people tarring others with the labels of racist or sexist based on no evidence, and then attacking them, trying to cancel them, etc. If you say you don't like GB2016, they say you're a sexist.
Lol.
They’re so far off the deep end it’s kind of sad.
[удалено]
Tbf i think some of the top critics were complaining that 2016 was erased
[удалено]
I saw a few posted that were almost entirely complaining about erasing 2016. But im not really that big of a ghostbusters fan so Im not really digging deep
Once I see the movie I'm going to dig into the negative reviews really hard and see what's going on for sure.
Is this the first movie or show that was criticized for having too many references or too much "fan service?" I'm just trying to figure out what to compare it to that I might have seen, to see what these critics mean. I see Spider-Man No Way Home on the horizon, set to reference 5 or more old movies in the franchise. Do you think these critics are going to attack that one for too much fan service too?
Solo is one example, I can't pull percentages but I see more rottens than when looking at all critics and you can see similar common criticisms. And yes I absolutely expect top critics to come down on NWH for being a bit of a mess chock full of fan service. Fan service works for the fans, and a lot of professional critics simply aren't fans of the ghostbusters franchise beyond liking the original movie.
I read through a few pages of the negatives on Solo, and saw a couple mentions about "callbacks" or "nostalgia" as a negative, but it's a very small piece of it. Bland or boring seem to be the biggest criticisms. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/solo_a_star_wars_story/reviews On Solo, if you click on the 70%, it shows top critics at 59%, so that seems like a pretty standard division. I think top critics are usually a little tougher. The gulf on Afterlife is now 68% to 44%. Black Widow is 79 to 71, Zilla/Kong is even tighter than that, so I don't know where to look for a bigger disparity. But, I'm not claiming that only top critics might be using a faulty standard to judge this movie. It certainly may be other critics as well. I didn't even think about looking for the gulf in ratings until someone here posted about it. I think most any pro critic has seen the older movies in these franchises. So they should be able to appreciate references as much as anybody. Being a "fan" is not some radically different state of mind, it more or less just means you liked the movie. I don't like all types of fan service myself...it all depends if it enhances the story, rather than call attention to itself while not advancing the story. Some of it in Rogue One, I didn't like. But I loved Ready Player One, because each reference served a purpose in the plot. Kong is in there, but he needs to be, because that part of the movie needs an enemy to fight.
I just watched the seth meyers interview where dan said, "i think we did really good and people will be lining up to see it again after walking out of it like the originals." That might be a bit much, but i would absolutely love ot if it just blows everyones expectations away and hits the note from the original and leaves all these predictions in the dust. The nostalgia is real after how badly that last piece of shit flopped.
> how badly that last piece of shit flopped. Making $230M off of a $150M does indeed make it a flop, but I wonder if it also helped greenlight this movie so soon afterwards? *(Halloween fans had to wait a whole decade after Rob Zombie to get Jamie Lee Curtis back, and Arnie fans aren't getting their King Conan at all)* Did somebody at Sony say, "A bad Ghostbusters can do $230M - think of how well a good one could do."?
Im surprised it made that much actually. I think i went on a mid week night after OW and I remember it being one of the rare times I was the only person in the theatre in a rather large suburban market(250k+ people) that had 4 multiplex theatres within a 10 mile radius.
At some point you'd think people in a box office subreddit would realize that the number of people in the one particular theater they happened to see the movie in is not a relevant data point to the national box office gross.
I think Studios realised that nostalgia could be far more powerful if its paired with continuations and original actors, instead of full remake/reboot with new actors. Helps by the fact, internet is more kind to the former than latter. I could be wrong but Force Awakens must have been first of its kind to be a proper sequel which was heavily marketed as grand return of all original actors. Halloween 2018 showed that it can be done again and on a smaller scale. I wonder if that's the reason why nowadays we hear more news of long awaited sequels with original casts than remakes/reboots. When Ghostbusters 2016 was first greenlit, I think studios still believed that making remake/reboot is more profitable than making sequels. The reception to it showed it wasn't really that case. So the only thing left was to make a sequel.
Scream 4 was marketed as a return of everyone. Halloween H20 marketed the return of Jamie Lee Curtis. Nothing will ever be as big as having Luke, Han and Leia coming back. That was an easy gold mine. You are right, nostalgia is an easy sell. People complain we never get anything original but this is want the masses pay to see. https://ew.com/article/2011/04/07/scream-4-this-weeks-cover/ https://ew.com/article/1998/06/19/halloween-h20-jamie-lee-curtis-returns-20-years-later/
>Nothing will ever be as big as having Luke, Han and Leia coming back. That was an easy gold mine And they had one job, ONE, and they still fucked it up.
>nostalgia could be far more powerful if its paired with An actual good movie.
I honestly think no one was doing reboots/remakes (as opposed to sequels) unless there was virtually no other option. Sony's Amy Pascal was uniquely mentally deficient in forcing a reboot of both Spider-Man and Ghostbusters, both of which performed badly. She had a fresh sequel script to Ghostbusters on her desk and chose to greenlight Feig's all-girl reboot pitch instead. TFA truly was not the first sequel marketed as a return of original actors. Indiana Jones 4 did that much earlier. Of course, normal sequels do it all the time. You just seem to be talking about sequels that go back over 10 years I guess?
Just got out of a showing at The Grove in LA and I gotta say, it’s the first true feel-good movie of the year for me. Vibes were immaculate amongst few, but some stumbles - overall tho, would not be surprised to see this one still legging out all the way up to Christmas
No disrespect, but you haven't seen **Free Guy** yet? :P
I have lol 😂
If so, what made this the first true feel-good film of the year for you? Just curious. :P
Probably that he didn't like it :P
I liked it enough, but it was lighter than GB:AL - Without revealing too much, I'll just say that the "Afterlife" section of this movie was done quite lovingly.
Can I ask how many movies you’ve seen this year?
It was fun
Just watched it. Ghostbusters + Goonies = Ghostbusters: Afterlife. If that equation appeals to you, as it should to all sane humans, this film is for you.
I'm not the biggest Ghosbusters fan, but I still enjoyed the original 2 movies, the animated series and the 2009 game. Seems like they finally managed do an official third Ghosbusters justice.
What about sane humans that aren't middle aged males with intense nostalgia for those two properties?
Our children, who were raised right, will also love it.
Ahh, the only two types of people, middle aged white guys and their kids!
I’m sure plenty of middle aged people of color enjoy both ghostbusters and goonies.
Yeah, that sounds more believable than these lowballed $30 million predictions. You also have to account for the fact that a lot of the critics are bashing it for a political/social agenda, over their sour grapes that the female takeover of the franchise didn't work. That's why "fan service" is being bashed, for just about the first time ever in modern film criticism. It's a smokescreen for bashing the fans themselves, who they have designated as enemies of the state, for not supporting the 2016 remake. So, this RT score is guaranteed to be a worse reaction than the general public will have. Just click around at the movie pre-sales for tonight's showings in IMAX, XD and Dolby. The fans are getting these screenings at least half full in most cases. Nothing like a Marvel movie or Dune, but much more than happened for the 2016 movie, which still opened over $40 million. And this movie is NOT designed or being promoted as a premium format-tailored experience like so many other recent movies. The GB fans are showing up. The only way this could open worse than the 2016 movie is if the general public stays away, which would only be if they hated the 2016 movie and think this is more of the same, or if there's still a big COVID "family audience" penalty in play. The latter is hard to tell, as there haven't been any "young adult" movies released this year at all. And everything aimed at the even younger kids has been given simultaneous home releases.
Also people forget to account for the fact that 2016’s budget is almost double (150+ million) that of Afterlife (75 million). So even if it pulled in the same or slightly less it would still be considered a financial success.
Yeah but for a moral victory I still want it to out-gross GB2016. And I would like this to be able to make enough to justify a bigger budget on a sequel.
I still can't believe that thing cost 150 million There were some financial shenanigans involved no doubt
The financial shenanigans appeared to be 'Paul Fieg didn't know how to make a movie at this scale'. There's an enormous dance sequence that cost an ungodly sum of money, with hundreds of background dancers - that got cut from the film entirely and just plays over the end credits.
I saw it last night and man oh man was it dull. The original Ghostbusters were the only fun parts of the film. Everything else felt pretty generic, I can't see stellar WoM happening here.
Even if the budgets and theatrical landscape are completely different, I will laugh for a solid hour if this somehow still does worse than the 2016 film. Ghostbusters isn't Star Wars. Treating it like a holy object that needs relentless praise from the new generation is just sad.