The Video Game Critic

Much like the C64 Critic didn't think Batman vs Superman was that bad, i really didn't think the Ghostbusters reboot was that bad. Is it different from the original? Yes. Does it have entertainment value? That's open to your own opinion, but I personally found it to be pretty good. I think a lot of people's opinions are based upon preconceived notions going into the film. It's going to be hard to like a film if you go into it comparing it head to head against the original.

Luigi & Peach wrote:I think a lot of people's opinions are based upon preconceived notions going into the film. It's going to be hard to like a film if you go into it comparing it head to head against the original.

That's on the filmmakers for calling it friggin' Ghostbusters. They set that standard themselves.

It's ridiculous that it's always movies that were perfectly fine the first time around that get remade and rebooted. Robocop. Ben-Hur. Psycho, for crying out loud! Who do these people think they're kidding, like they're going to improve on DeMille or Hitchcock? Except they obviously don't even try; it's just a cash grab built on branding and name recognition, and it's downright insulting. What I don't understand is why people keep supporting this crap when they know that, for example, the "Poltergeist" in the theater in 2015 won't hold a candle to the Poltergeist they love from 1982. If you like the original movie so much, nothing's stopping you from just watching it again instead of paying more to see a worse version. And if you want to see something big in the theater, you could give your time and money to a movie that actually deserves them.

Stalvern wrote: That's on the filmmakers for calling it friggin' Ghostbusters. They set that standard themselves.

It's ridiculous that it's always movies that were perfectly fine the first time around that get remade and rebooted.

I agree with you. You take a brand, you take the expectations.

Trying to remake something that was a success is really swimming upstream. Why not go remake something that had potential but wasn't a success. For instance, I think remaking a show like Space:1999 as Space:2099 makes sense as it was a show with potential but never was a success.

scotland wrote:Trying to remake something that was a success is really swimming upstream. Why not go remake something that had potential but wasn't a success. For instance, I think remaking a show like Space:1999 as Space:2099 makes sense as it was a show with potential but never was a success.

I was genuinely excited when I found out a few years ago that Disney had a remake of The Black Hole in the works; the original was a corny mess, but the premise and visuals were genuinely cool, and a second go really could have been something. Now it's 2017, Disney's canceled The Black Hole, and a live-action Beauty and the Beast is raking in the cash. And coming soon, we have a live-action Ghost in the Shell set in a Japan where nobody is Japanese, because Hollywood is run by the most patronizing idiots in the world.

scotland wrote:

Stalvern wrote: That's on the filmmakers for calling it friggin' Ghostbusters. They set that standard themselves.

It's ridiculous that it's always movies that were perfectly fine the first time around that get remade and rebooted.

I agree with you. You take a brand, you take the expectations.

Trying to remake something that was a success is really swimming upstream. Why not go remake something that had potential but wasn't a success. For instance, I think remaking a show like Space:1999 as Space:2099 makes sense as it was a show with potential but never was a success.

Space:1999, now there's a blast from the past. I remember watching that with my mom when I was a wee tyke back in the day. And you're right, you take the brand, you take the expectations. That's why I'm really excited about my movie script "Gone With The Wind 2: Electric Boogaloo".

Gleebergloben123 wrote:That's why I'm really excited about my movie script "Gone With The Wind 2: Electric Boogaloo".

That actually happened. There was a sequel to the original novel in 1991 called Scarlett, and it got turned into a $40 million TV miniseries a few years later. The adaptation has only a 6.5 rating on IMDb, but it's supposed to be better than the book, which is apparently a mediocre and very long (almost as long as the original) romance novel that happens to use the Gone with the Wind characters.

Stalvern wrote:

Gleebergloben123 wrote:That's why I'm really excited about my movie script "Gone With The Wind 2: Electric Boogaloo".

That actually happened. There was a sequel to the original novel in 1991 called Scarlett, and it got turned into a $40 million TV miniseries a few years later. The adaptation has only a 6.5 rating on IMDb, but it's supposed to be better than the book, which is apparently a mediocre and very long (almost as long as the original) romance novel that happens to use the Gone with the Wind characters.

Considering how much my wife and I hated the original film, I don't think I could imagine sitting through an even worse sequel.

Luigi & Peach wrote:Much like the C64 Critic didn't think Batman vs Superman was that bad, i really didn't think the Ghostbusters reboot was that bad. Is it different from the original? Yes. Does it have entertainment value? That's open to your own opinion, but I personally found it to be pretty good. I think a lot of people's opinions are based upon preconceived notions going into the film. It's going to be hard to like a film if you go into it comparing it head to head against the original.

Not a popular opinion but I found the new ghostbusters to be a better movie than the original. The original flat out isn't funny anymore; it has not held up. Bill Murray clearly doesn't even want to be there (he only did the original Ghostbusters so he could get another movie made).

The new one isn't the greatest movie ever made but it is consistently funny (until the boring action scene at the end).