John Marston Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Eric Atreides said: People can have opinions different than yours, hon. yeah but when this is literally the only place seeing people proclaim love for the 2016 film and saying that it is better than the 1984 movie, it definitely is strange Edited March 22 by John Marston 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) both the 2016 and 2021 movies suck for different reasons. the 2016 movie was awful annoying slapstick. GB: Afterlife was a weird Stranger Things knockoff that turned into a rehash of the original film. Also it was a strange business decision to have the original GB's only show up for a brief cameo at the end. Ghostbusters 2 while a step down from the first is solid and not bad at all. Vigo the Carpathian was actually scary as fuck as a kid. Scenes like Venkman's talk show and the Titanic scene are so memorable that for a while I assumed they were scenes from the first movie. Honestly, one weird thing the main Ghostbusters movies do is try to make the GB's either discredited or some forgotten urban legend. Why? It makes no sense. Edited March 22 by John Marston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric S'ennui Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 35 minutes ago, John Marston said: yeah but when this is literally the only place seeing people proclaim love for the 2016 film and saying that it is better than the 1984 movie, it definitely is strange I mean it's only like 2 or 3 people doing this. Not really this huge cult following folks here are trying to parrot. And I'm still not sure why this is "strange", but go off I guess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyPistola Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 30 minutes ago, John Marston said: both the 2016 and 2021 movies suck for different reasons. the 2016 movie was awful annoying slapstick. GB: Afterlife was a weird Stranger Things knockoff that turned into a rehash of the original film. Also it was a strange business decision to have the original GB's only show up for a brief cameo at the end. Ghostbusters 2 while a step down from the first is solid and not bad at all. Vigo the Carpathian was actually scary as fuck as a kid. Scenes like Venkman's talk show and the Titanic scene are so memorable that for a while I assumed they were scenes from the first movie. Honestly, one weird thing the main Ghostbusters movies do is try to make the GB's either discredited or some forgotten urban legend. Why? It makes no sense. Ghostbusters 2 is awful. Unlikeable characters, basically no laughs and and an over reliance on special effects. To me it's just as bad as Ghostbusters 2016. I truely can't see how someone can say 2 is solid while 2016 is awful, that's gotta be nostalgia talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric S'ennui Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 Just now, SaltyPistola said: Ghostbusters 2 is awful. Unlikeable characters, basically no laughs and and an over reliance on special effects. To me it's just as bad as Ghostbusters 2016. I truely can't see how someone can say 2 is solid while 2016 is awful, that's gotta be nostalgia talking. It's like Home Alone 2 where people only like it because they were 10 when they first saw it. It's the ground zero of all the other movies and all the same problems they share. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoobSaibot Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 I went to see it. More people wanted to see Dune on a Thursday night than this. I still had fun with it in spite of everything. Maybe I'm just boring. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 4 minutes ago, SaltyPistola said: Ghostbusters 2 is awful. Unlikeable characters, basically no laughs and and an over reliance on special effects. To me it's just as bad as Ghostbusters 2016. I truely can't see how someone can say 2 is solid while 2016 is awful, that's gotta be nostalgia talking. because 2 has the original cast, and as some good creepy moments. Like the first it remembers to play its actual ghost/monster threat straight the 2016 movie is just awful over the top slapstick where they don’t take a single thing seriously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 We would definitely see more people (within the industry in particular) fighting back against the backlash towards the '16 movie today than we did 8 years ago when the overall perception of "fandoms" wasn't nearly as accepted as toxic as it is today, especially when a not insignificant portion of it was aimed directly at the cast (the treatment of Leslie Jones was especially disgusting). It's gotten so bad that even the Razzies have been forced to clean up their image (such as it's always been) a bit following a series of mean-spirited controversies (that they, admittedly, brought on themselves). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyDargon Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Ghostbusters 2016 was not good even if certain groups accusing it of being the worst film of all time were clearly acting in bad faith. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liiviig 1998 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) Only watched one Ghostbusters film and that was the 2016 and it wasn't my cup of tea. Maybe I will watch the original some day but don't have the zeal to do it. Yeah we know all about the toxicity and can argue it all day long but this movie wasn't greatly recieved. It's not in the "divisive" category. As some one viewing it as general audience,with zero attachment to franchise or characters . it was just poorly excuted comedy. Was cringing or not really funny for large sections of the time. Don't know anything about the franchise. But to me . It feels dated and I suspect that's how most in Gen Z crowd feels . Edited March 22 by Liiviig 1998 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoh Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, charlie Jatinder said: Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire MiniTC2 Final Previews - 8032/71000 (249 showings) $97K Very good finish here. Normally this would mean $4.75M+ previews. I was seeing this in NY AMC theaters as well, the last shows got REALLY good walk ups. and I have just figured out the reason: Good WoM (86% on RT). Nowadays people get to know their friends opinion sooner than ever. Frozen Empire has debuted few hours ago with 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. On par with Kung Fu Panda, which means it may also get a score at the A range on Cinema Score (KFP4 86% RT, A- Cinema Score) I told you @Porthos audience score would be great, didn’t I? Out of last 4 Ghostbusters movies, critics only gave once a really good score to a GB sequel, this was to 2016 GB female reboot (75% on RT). And guess what, that was the only sequel that had a rotten score from audience (49%) lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustLurking Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 8 minutes ago, leoh said: I was seeing this in NY AMC theaters as well, the last shows got REALLY good walk ups. and I have just figured out the reason: Good WoM (86% on RT). Nowadays people get to know their friends opinion sooner than ever. Frozen Empire has debuted few hours ago with 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. On par with Kung Fu Panda, which means it may also get a score at the A range on Cinema Score (KFP4 86% RT, A- Cinema Score) I told you @Porthos audience score would be great, didn’t I? Out of last 4 Ghostbusters movies, critics only gave once a really good score to a GB sequel, this was to 2016 GB female reboot (75% on RT). And guess what, that was the only sequel that had a rotten score from audience (49%) lol 86% in verified era is mixed at best for a franchise. that said I do not want to make this a convo for this thread. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorddemaxus Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 11 minutes ago, leoh said: I was seeing this in NY AMC theaters as well, the last shows got REALLY good walk ups. and I have just figured out the reason: Good WoM (86% on RT). Nowadays people get to know their friends opinion sooner than ever. Frozen Empire has debuted few hours ago with 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. On par with Kung Fu Panda, which means it may also get a score at the A range on Cinema Score (KFP4 86% RT, A- Cinema Score) I told you @Porthos audience score would be great, didn’t I? Out of last 4 Ghostbusters movies, critics only gave once a really good score to a GB sequel, this was to 2016 GB female reboot (75% on RT). And guess what, that was the only sequel that had a rotten score from audience (49%) lol The problem with your argument here is the misguided assumption that a 86% verified audience score is good (Kung Fu Panda is a bad comp). It is not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoh Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 17 minutes ago, JustLurking said: 86% in verified era is mixed at best for a franchise. that said I do not want to make this a convo for this thread. 86% on RT normally matches A- on cinema score, not a rule of course. But what is more relevant: to get 86% audience score on RT you have to have AT THE VERY LEAST 4.2 stars (on average) from audience. I mean if this is what you wanna called “mixed” or “bad” WoM… ok, it’s up to you. Edited March 22 by leoh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misterpepp Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 86 does not normally match A-. B+ is the norm for that score. Shazam 2 is the better comp, that has the same verified RT audience score. If it leans more toward families, an A- is still possible, but this is not a good start and certainly doesn't suggest strong word-of-mouth. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatree Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 6 hours ago, John Marston said: yeah but when this is literally the only place seeing people proclaim love for the 2016 film and saying that it is better than the 1984 movie, it definitely is strange I’m not proclaiming love for it. I just thought it was decent, and I didn’t like the original. i only watched the original films as an adult in the 2010s so I have no nostalgia for it. Edited March 22 by Avatree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummingLemon496 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 25 minutes ago, JustLurking said: 86% in verified era is mixed at best for a franchise. that said I do not want to make this a convo for this thread. Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoh Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 9 minutes ago, HummingLemon496 said: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019) which had good legs: 3,2x OW. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasNicole Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 8 minutes ago, leoh said: which had good legs: 3,2x OW. 2,90x OW actually, awful legs for DEC and yes starting with 86% for a live action franchise is usually an horrible sign, possible B+ incoming along with muted OW, is shaping to be the first somewhat big disappointment of the year 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummingLemon496 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 86% exactly is specifically infamous for TROS because there's some conspiracy theory or whatever that Disney locked the score at 86 because it stayed the same the ENTIRE time 🤣 Edited March 22 by HummingLemon496 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
