Ghostbusters (2016) (1 Viewer)

[Tony J Case]

Some of the cameos were fun.

I'd have to go the other way. I thought the cameos (and leaning on the Nostalgia button in other ways) were really distracting and kept taking me out of the moment. Reminding me of a much better movie I could be watching is never a good idea.

 

[Simon Massey]

Agreed about the cameos being distracting even though I liked the film. The only one that worked well was Weavers I thought. Murray was longer than I thought he would be but Ackroyds was terrible - almost like fan-fiction

 

[Tino]

I didn't like or dislike the cameos. Except for Ramis's. [emoji13] that made me laugh.

 

[TravisR]

Agreed about the cameos being distracting even though I liked the film. The only one that worked well was Weavers I thought. Murray was longer than I thought he would be but Ackroyds was terrible - almost like fan-fiction

The one I really liked was

Spoiler

Ernie Hudson's and since it was weird, the Rick Moranis bust in the backgound gave me a chuckle. The Aykroyd and Weaver ones weren't good or bad to me but the Murray one was surprisingly unfunny.

 

[Tino]

I think it was a Harold Ramis bust Travis.

 

[TravisR]

I think it was a Harold Ramis bust Travis.

Was it? Shows what I know.

 

[WillG]

The one I really liked was

Spoiler

Ernie Hudson's and since it was weird, the Rick Moranis bust in the backgound gave me a chuckle. The Aykroyd and Weaver ones weren't good or bad to me but the Murray one was surprisingly unfunny.

Well since Sony basically had to threaten to sue Murray to get him to appear, it doesn't surprise me.

 

[TJPC]

Just saw the movie this afternoon. I was puzzled by the story. Why didn't they have the new cast play the next generation?
These women have been hysterically funny in other situations not here. Here we have a pleasant little summer movie that is easily forgettable with not one line I can remember. I did not think it was rotten, but would not really recommend it to anyone.

 

[Tino]

Here's an article explaining why you should see Ghostbusters in IMAX 3D.

Watch Ghostbusters in 3D (really!)http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/15/12200134/ghostbusters-3d

 

[George_W_K]

Here's an article explaining why you should see Ghostbusters in IMAX 3D.

Watch Ghostbusters in 3D (really!)http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/15/12200134/ghostbusters-3d

That's pretty cool.

 

[Tino]

Definitely the way to see it. And it's only in IMAX 3D till Friday.

 

[Tino]

‘Ghostbusters’ Opening Is A Record For Melissa McCarthy & Paul Feig, But Is It Big Enough For A Reboot?

http://deadline.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-weekend-box-office-1201787149/

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Definitely the way to see it. And it's only in IMAX 3D till Friday.

Earlier in some locations, because Star Trek is showing at marathon screenings in some IMAX theaters on Wednesday, and then opening on Thursday - so Tuesday will be the last day for a number of locations.

 

[Sam Posten]

I liked it mostly. Fun. Cameos were lame but no issue with the leads. McKinnon was the best and Patty was not nearly as cringeworthy as the trailer led me to believe.

Fire the trailer editor.

This is going to make an awesome 4K disk, sad it won't be 4K 3D

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

'Ghostbusters' Reboot Loses Weekend, Will Need Legs if Franchise is to Continue

 

[The Obsolete Man]

'Ghostbusters' Reboot Loses Weekend, Will Need Legs if Franchise is to Continue

It isn't going to have any legs with Star Trek coming...

 

[Tino]

It isn't going to have any legs with Star Trek coming...

I think it will. Different audience. But I guess we'll see.

 

[TravisR]

$46 million dollars should be a pretty good opening if you're spending a sane amount of money on a movie. Of course, things like Lord Of The Rings (where they built a world) or Titanic (where they had to manufacture nearly everything onscreen and they built 90% of a ship!) or an Avengers movie (where you're paying the cast more than most countries' GNP) are expensive but what the hell could have made Ghostbusters cost $150 million dollars?

 

[Tino]

$46 million dollars should be a pretty good opening if you're spending a sane amount of money on a movie. Of course, things like Lord Of The Rings (where they built a world) or Titanic (where they had to manufacture nearly everything onscreen and they built 90% of a ship!) or an Avengers movie (where you're paying the cast more than most countries' GNP) are expensive but what the hell could have made Ghostbusters cost $150 million dollars?

I would assume Salaries, visual effects, location shooting.

 

[TravisR]

I would assume Salaries, visual effects, location shooting.

That must be it but I can't believe a studio thought that this movie would generate the $300 or so million needed to turn a profit. It's one thing when you have an established franchise like Star Wars or Marvel or even Pixar and you can count on a fortune being generated but to think that a movie where the franchise is beginning anew is going to become one of the top 50 or 75 biggest grossing movies ever made seems like an extremely foolish gamble. The blame should not be on the movie, it should be on the people who OKed a budget that was too big.