Jump to content

Ghostbusters


Axis
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, the real result of this one not going down in flames is that we'll get more remakes of films we treasure.

Are you new to movies?

 

everything is getting remade, has been for awhile, and will continue to do so. The biggest thing this being not a bomb will do is justify for female-driven big budget summer movies. Which is a good thing, because that actually opens the door to more original work, not just the idea of female-iing old hits.

 

But the idea of revitalizing older IP is the primary operating pln for every studio, and has been for about a decade now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you new to movies?

 

We went over this a couple pages back. Studios follow the money. If remakes aren't profitable, they stop being made with such frequency like the movies based on old television series have been greatly reduced in the past decade. If remakes based on stuff that people really treasure lose studios a big pile of money, then they'll consider that there are some properties that shouldn't be touched.

 

The biggest thing this being not a bomb will do is justify for female-driven big budget summer movies.

 

Actually, it was a bomb. Well, maybe "bomb" is too strong a word, but this movie is going to lose a fair amount of money. It cost $144 million before marketing and only brought in $46 million over the weekend. I mean, we all agree Independence Day: Resurgence did poorly, but that movie only did a little worse on its opening weekend ($41 million) and had a strong foreign market run to go along with it. Ghostbusters is a fairly American franchise, so the foreign markets probably won't save it.

 

Ghostbusters cleared its expectations and managed to not be an outright embarrassment, but it's still going to end up in the red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, it was one fart joke. That's pretty much the extent of the vulgarity, unless you count getting slimed as vulgar.

In that case, its back on the rental queue.

 

Which isn't nearly as much of an insult from me as it is from others. I'll stretch to MAYBE go see two movies a year these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you new to movies?

We went over this a couple pages back. Studios follow the money. If remakes aren't profitable, they stop being made with such frequency like the movies based on old television series have been greatly reduced in the past decade. If remakes based on stuff that people really treasure lose studios a big pile of money, then they'll consider that there are some properties that shouldn't be touched.

 

That's not the case actually. The discussion at the studio level is not specific to remakes, sequels, reboots, distant sequels, etc. None of that really matters. It begins and ends as a discussion about IP. That is what is talked about first. The studios ask them self what IP do we own, or can we get, that is a known money-maker. It's not that they lost interest in remaking old TV shows, it's that they ran out of big ones worth remaking.

 

Whether it turns out to be a reboot, sequel, prequel, remake or whatever isn't decided until after they decide they want to act on the IP. The studios decide on the IP, and as they bring creatives on they let those people decide which direction the movie takes. Ghostbusters is a great example. The studio just wanted to bring the IP back-- it was in development as a sequel, then a spin-off, then a reboot. The studio didn't care what shape it took-- it just wanted it to perform.

 

So yes, they follow the money, but people no longer seeing remakes is not going to change this discussion-- it would be people eschewing anything that wasn't original. But guess what-- sadly, that's not going to happen. The reason Hollywood is not as original as it used to be is because the mass-audiences have proven they want the same thing over and over.

 

 

The biggest thing this being not a bomb will do is justify for female-driven big budget summer movies.

Actually, it was a bomb. Well, maybe "bomb" is too strong a word, but this movie is going to lose a fair amount of money. It cost $144 million before marketing and only brought in $46 million over the weekend. I mean, we all agree Independence Day: Resurgence did poorly, but that movie only did a little worse on its opening weekend ($41 million) and had a strong foreign market run to go along with it. Ghostbusters is a fairly American franchise, so the foreign markets probably won't save it.

 

Ghostbusters cleared its expectations and managed to not be an outright embarrassment, but it's still going to end up in the red.

 

Fair enough, I wasn't actually tracking its performance, just answering your question.

 

As for the movie itself... kid and I are off to see ti now, so I;ll report back.

 

But on misogyny complaint-- if you can express why you don't like a movie and it doesn't have to do with women, you can invalidate being called sexist. If you can't, then you have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had a ghost at my house and 4 chicks showed up I'd be pretty pissed.

 

But in all seriousness, I didn't think Bridesmaids was half as funny as most people seemed to however Spy was super funny. Especially Rose Byrne who had some of the great deadpan deliveries ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on misogyny complaint-- if you can express why you don't like a movie and it doesn't have to do with women, you can invalidate being called sexist. If you can't, then you have a problem.

 

It's like the people criticizing Aftermath and say they're not homophobic, but then proceed to explain why they don't want to read about gay people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on misogyny complaint-- if you can express why you don't like a movie and it doesn't have to do with women, you can invalidate being called sexist. If you can't, then you have a problem.

 

The minute I heard they cast Melissa McCarthy, I was out. That's really all the reason I've ever needed. I've pretty much got the same reaction to her as to Adam Sandler. Yeah, the all-girl team sounded gimmicky, but Hollywood often uses gimmicks. It's not like I was high on a remake in the first place and the premise turned me off.

 

I tend to think the truth is that it became the source of defensiveness for the movie more than the real reason anyone had a problem. Any cast that wasn't the original was going to be greeted with skepticism. It just so happened that since this cast became this weird social issue where you needed to take a side. Not because of the haters, but because of the defenders cherry-picking a few off-color remarks and painting everyone with the broad brush.

 

And, of course, when people started with the name calling, ears started closing and the other side dug in and started actually basing some of their ego on whether the film would do good or not. You yourself have admitted that you just wanted it to good to show up the fanboys. So, the film exceeded expectations and there has been a victory lap. The forces of misogyny have been vanquished, even though it's far from clear that misogyny was anything but really a mostly imagined reason for people having negative feelings for the trailer in the first place.

 

As for my own bonafides, once again, go back to the first couple pages. I've no problem whatsoever with women in lead roles and wish there were more. Women make up the vast majority of the main characters in the novels I read and you can go onto the the Ghost in the Shell thread for some more of my thoughts on the matter. I'd love it if more women headed up big budget movies. I think it's a shame that Angelina Jolie never really got a studio to back her with a true franchise despite her obvious star power or that Scarlett Johansson isn't being given a chance now. Give me a choice between watching a guy for two hours or a girl, I'll pick a girl.

 

But Ghostbusters has become some sort of litmus test. This movie that people were skeptical about well before anything was announced about an all-female team. Some films are going to be difficult to ever touch because the fanbase is very protective of it. Ghostbusters is among those franchises. It's a shame that people confused that with a social issue for no reason. I suspect when we look back on it all, we'll wonder what the heck everyone was all up in arms about.

 

 

 

It's not that they lost interest in remaking old TV shows, it's that they ran out of big ones worth remaking.

 

It's been 25 years since The Addams Family opened the floodgates for those movies (feeling old yet?). Surely enough time has passed that they can start doing remakes for a lot of those 90s movies if they are so inclined. Surely in the past 25 years several television shows have passed into the category of nostalgia and are perfectly ripe for adaptation.

 

I'd submit that the reason they don't do it as much anymore, even with the surprise success of 21 Jump Street, has nothing to do with running out of properties. If we know nothing else, we know that they'll just go right back to the well if there's money to be made. You can observe the exception to the television adaptation rule: Movies based on cartoons. Those are still going strong. And because of that, they had no problem rebooting Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles twice in the past ten years.

 

No, it's not studios running out of television properties, it's a lack of faith in the power of those IPs to bring in audiences. Audience behavior altered studio offerings.

 

 

 

It's like the people criticizing Aftermath and say they're not homophobic, but then proceed to explain why they don't want to read about gay people.

 

I've not read Aftermath and this is the first I've heard about any gay controversy surrounding it, but I sincerely doubt that any and all criticism of it is based on homophobia and they all admit it.

 

My guess, Mara's gotten like one or two replies like that. Perhaps they even did as I did and mentioned something in passing like it being a gimmick or something and Mara just closed her ears and declared victory. That seems much more likely to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a serious question. Do you read the rest of the internet?

 

I imagine that would take more time than I have.

 

Yes, you can find outright misogynist comments. Yes, in cases of other races or gays you can find homophobic comments, racist comments, etc.. But that doesn't mean that it represents the opinions of anyone but the usual internet bottom feeders you can find anywhere about anything. It's silly to give them credit enough to believe they represent anyone but themselves. And usually they're just posting it to get a rise out of you in the first place as trolls are wont to do. Placing that burden on everyone is its own brand of silliness.

 

I will guarantee you one thing. It suddenly got a whole lot worse after the excuse of misogyny was introduced. That controversy attracted the actual misogynists who couldn't give a rip about the movie. I'm sure they were unpleasant in their unthinking drivel they spew. But, then, so are you. You are them. Here you are, happy about the success of a franchise because of what it means to your social cause. A franchise you didn't even like, but which a social issue has given your ego had a stake in. Not because you give a rip about the franchise, but because of what its success or failure means to your worldview. It's tiresome and sad that you don't realize you are precisely that which you fight against.

 

So, yeah, those like you Mara and the actual misogynists that ran to the sounds of chaos for the opportunity to vent your grievances I'm sure said mean things to each other. Both of those sides are worthless and both sides deserve all the scorn that the other threw at them, because neither should have even been there in the first place and are most unwelcome to most of the old fans.

 

But the actual gut reactions from fans to the trailers and such. The people that made it the most disliked trailer of all-time, to think that all but a small portion of them were just members of the modern He-Man Woman-Haters Club. The dislike for the project was genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But on misogyny complaint-- if you can express why you don't like a movie and it doesn't have to do with women, you can invalidate being called sexist. If you can't, then you have a problem.

I tend to think the truth is that it became the source of defensiveness for the movie more than the real reason anyone had a problem. Any cast that wasn't the original was going to be greeted with skepticism. It just so happened that since this cast became this weird social issue where you needed to take a side. Not because of the haters, but because of the defenders cherry-picking a few off-color remarks and painting everyone with the broad brush.

 

Yeah, no-- it was NOT a few off-color remarks. It was a very large, very vocal, very unstable faction of male fandom. The same type of dudes who are behind gamer gate. People involved in the movie were driven off of social media by an endless barrage. That's not a few outlier voices.

 

 

 

It's not that they lost interest in remaking old TV shows, it's that they ran out of big ones worth remaking.

It's been 25 years since The Addams Family opened the floodgates for those movies (feeling old yet?). Surely enough time has passed that they can start doing remakes for a lot of those 90s movies if they are so inclined. Surely in the past 25 years several television shows have passed into the category of nostalgia and are perfectly ripe for adaptation.

 

I'd submit that the reason they don't do it as much anymore, even with the surprise success of 21 Jump Street, has nothing to do with running out of properties. If we know nothing else, we know that they'll just go right back to the well if there's money to be made. You can observe the exception to the television adaptation rule: Movies based on cartoons. Those are still going strong. And because of that, they had no problem rebooting Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles twice in the past ten years.

 

No, it's not studios running out of television properties, it's a lack of faith in the power of those IPs to bring in audiences. Audience behavior altered studio offerings.

 

Okay-- so you disagree with me specifically, so you can agree with my general point? All while carefully not acknowledging a single thing I said on the topic of IP, which is what the conversation is really about... cause I know that's what you do when you realize somebody might be right-- you pretend it doesn't happen.

 

Sure, I'm shocked we haven't seen a remake of The Jeffersons as a big screen remake. Yes, there are shows out there to be remade, but most of the ones with a premise that can be made into a movie have been done, and if they didn't perform they aren't going to be done again. Plus, since the age old 90s, TV itself has re-entered a golden age. Studios are way more interested in remaking TV shows as TV shows, or simply updating them than making movies based on the concepts.

 

Back to your original point, TV shows being remade as movies didn't stop because they failed more than they succeeded. That certainly could have been a factor-- it's more about what franchise/IP/concept has the legs to open a movie. 21 Jump Street is a very easy pitch-- young looking cops go back to high school, hi-jinx ensue. That's easy. Addams family is easy. There's lots of TV shows just as big as those that haven't been made, but not many with such an easy high concept.

 

Again-- it's not a discussion of what specifically to make, the discussion begins and ends at the studio level with what IPs they have that they think can be made to perform as big budget, big return movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway-- just saw Ghostbusters...

 

The 11 year old enjoyed it. It was no Star Wars level flip out, but he liked it okay.

 

I'd give it a solid C+\B-

 

The story was actually really good-- it was just the right level of homage versus new direction. The bad guy made sense, the rules it set up for itself worked. Things happened for a reason. The characters were all cool, and the ghost designs/FX were phenomenal. I'll agree with everyone else that Kate McKinnon steals the show and makes you love her.

 

Really, I only have one complaint about it-- it wasn't funny.

 

If this movie had been truly, hardcore, laugh out loud funny, it would have been one of the best movies of the year. But it just wasn't. And I LIKE Wiig, McCarthy, Jones and McKinnon. I like other stuff they've done, I've seen them all be legit funny. But in this-- not so much.

 

When you have four mast comedians in a movie, and your funniest moments are Thor acting like a moron, there's something wrong.

 

I feel like whenever they got close-- when you could tell Wiig and McCarthy were riffing on each other and it was just about to get weird and funny, they'd cut and stick to the script-- which is odd for Feig. If anything, I felt like they were all reigned in too much. If this was as funny as say 21 Jump Street, this movie would have killed. Instead, it is just an okay movie.

 

That said-- that still in no way means it deserves the BS outrage it has received.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they were unpleasant in their unthinking drivel they spew. But, then, so are you. You are them. Here you are, happy about the success of a franchise because of what it means to your social cause. A franchise you didn't even like, but which a social issue has given your ego had a stake in. Not because you give a rip about the franchise, but because of what its success or failure means to your worldview. It's tiresome and sad that you don't realize you are precisely that which you fight against.

Haha, okay. I've made a handful of posts in this thread about liking the movie and commenting that seeing Internet fanboys lose their shit is hilarious. Am I going to speak out against misogynist ***holes? You bet. If that makes me "as bad as they are", so be it.

 

Driver - interesting review. I actually found it really funny but it was the dry, subtle humor I tend to enjoy. Every time Hemsworth came onscreen I started giggling. You're right, he's the funniest part of the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Driver - interesting review. I actually found it really funny but it was the dry, subtle humor I tend to enjoy. Every time Hemsworth came onscreen I started giggling. You're right, he's the funniest part of the movie.

Obviously humor is subjectional-- I started to think of what my favorite comedies were, and most of them were R-rated. Though i find the original GB to be hilarious still.

 

As for the topic of social causes-- http://gizmodo.com/twitter-isnt-doing-enough-about-leslie-jones-racist-tro-1783886488

 

If one doesn't think that's a problem, they're a jackass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway-- just saw Ghostbusters...

 

The 11 year old enjoyed it. It was no Star Wars level flip out, but he liked it okay.

 

I'd give it a solid C+\B-

 

The story was actually really good-- it was just the right level of homage versus new direction. The bad guy made sense, the rules it set up for itself worked. Things happened for a reason. The characters were all cool, and the ghost designs/FX were phenomenal. I'll agree with everyone else that Kate McKinnon steals the show and makes you love her.

 

Really, I only have one complaint about it-- it wasn't funny.

 

If this movie had been truly, hardcore, laugh out loud funny, it would have been one of the best movies of the year. But it just wasn't. And I LIKE Wiig, McCarthy, Jones and McKinnon. I like other stuff they've done, I've seen them all be legit funny. But in this-- not so much.

 

When you have four mast comedians in a movie, and your funniest moments are Thor acting like a moron, there's something wrong.

 

I feel like whenever they got close-- when you could tell Wiig and McCarthy were riffing on each other and it was just about to get weird and funny, they'd cut and stick to the script-- which is odd for Feig. If anything, I felt like they were all reigned in too much. If this was as funny as say 21 Jump Street, this movie would have killed. Instead, it is just an okay movie.

 

That said-- that still in no way means it deserves the BS outrage it has received.

I'm too lazy to pick out the part I wanted to comment on from this, but I am thrilled that McKinnon steals the show. I don't really even know her at all, but she has been the part of all of the trailers that I liked the most. I am glad to hear that there is a reason for that.

 

I'm saddened to hear that it really isn't that funny, though. Hopefully, I will be like Mara and disagree with you on that, though. ;) I hope to see the movie within the next week or so, though. Surprisingly, my interest was getting piqued enough that I wanted to go see it this past weekend, but I have been hard at work on a grant proposal with an impending deadline, so this will have to wait....along with everything else I want to do/read/watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay-- so you disagree with me specifically, so you can agree with my general point? All while carefully not acknowledging a single thing I said on the topic of IP, which is what the conversation is really about... cause I know that's what you do when you realize somebody might be right-- you pretend it doesn't happen.

 

I thought I did acknowledge and respond to it. You say that studios act rationally and put their money on the safe bet IPs not caring how it's done. I responded that they wouldn't make a certain type if they don't make money off of them and reiterated why my specific example demonstrates their backing off of certain types of movies while continuing with others that remain successful.

 

No, I didn't specifically respond to what you said about how IPs are put through, but I didn't believe it was really necessary. I didn't have an issue with that part. Only where you said that audience behavior wouldn't matter unless audiences abandoned all established properties for it to happen.

 

Thing is they WERE digging deep and making movies out of properties as odd as The Jeffersons. It's certainly a bigger property than McHale's Navy, Sgt. Bilko, or The Saint to name a few, none of which I would think were easy pitches. For that matter, I'd be surprised if whoever had the rights back then didn't dust off the series at one point or another.

 

 

 

Plus, since the age old 90s, TV itself has re-entered a golden age. Studios are way more interested in remaking TV shows as TV shows, or simply updating them than making movies based on the concepts.

 

Here's my issue with that. And you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm dubious that the economics of television are anywhere near as lucrative as the box office. It's my understanding that, outside of the breakout hits, television profits are being tightly squeezed these days thanks to the outright ridiculous number of shows currently being produced across mediums and the increased audience expectation that these shows be highly polished.

 

If anything, I believe the current big upswing in television retreads (fairly rare until just the last few years) has more to do with lowered expectations for individual shows. So I would think that if a movie could be made, that would still be the preferred medium for these studios.

 

 

 

If one doesn't think that's a problem, they're a jackass.

 

Internet. Trolls. Lots of them out there. Do not represent everyone, or any more than a fraction really, of those with an opinion such as this. It's a form of shutting down discussion to ask that anyone who holds down such an opinion have to own these other comments. I can find you disgusting Twitter feeds all day long from every interest group on the planet, including ones you've defended in the Lyceum that are a whole lot worse.

 

Me, I'm just defending that not everyone or even anything approaching a majority, of people who were down on this movie were raging across the internet. I wouldn't think that was even a particularly hard case to make. Frankly, this very conversation is demonstration enough of how quickly people are backed into a corner of assumed bad faith, causing these things to escalate. For goodness sake, it feels like you're implying that if I don't condemn the whole group who didn't like the trailer, then I must support choking Leslie Jones' Twitter with racist garbage.

 

How we got this far this quick is a microcosm of how I'm saying this whole thing played out!

 

I believe, and it was my impression at the time that this was beginning, was that the Ghostbusters trailer came out and pretty much everyone who cared enough to look was down on it. Some people defended it on the basis of misogyny, thus surprising and offending the vast majority of those who held this opinion that did so with in good faith. From there, the two outside camps came descended and turned it into their own little proxy flame war which I, frankly, hope they both lose. Like in Gamergate, the real cretins couldn't give two craps about the actual movie and just want to cause trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to redact-- promise. If anything, that is the biggest problem in this country whether we are talking about Ghostbusters or black vs police lives mattering.

 

To answer your question about TV profits-- it's actually a totally different type of math. Movies are bankrolled by studios and it's a pretty easy comparison from budget vs. gross box office.

 

TV budgets vary wildly from a couple hundred grand for a low rated sitcom, to a million per episode for a big cable one hour hit.

 

A network/channel will "pay" for a show, but instead of a box office take, profits are made from selling ad space, or in the case of premium cable, subscription shares. I use quotes because an outlet will do its best to make sure ad buys cover the cost of the show. They'll put money up to make a pilot, but beyond that they want the ad money to cover production.

 

So while the instant windfall of a movie doesn't happen often with TV, the money in, money out, profit model is one that is productive. The dollar amounts are a lot lower, but the profit percentage is more consistent. Advertisers watch the flawed neilsen ratings to figure how many people see their ads. If they get low, advertisers pull their ads, and shows get cancelled.

 

Plus, like movies, TV development runs on the notion that any one show could be the next Lost or Walking Dead whose ratings are so huge, they can charge insane money for ad space.

 

Walking Dead keeps getting cheaper and smaller as the ratings go up. AMC is making stupid money. If you can do that, several weeks in a row, every year, that beats movie money.

 

It's rare for shows to do that, but like I said-- they all assume everything they have in development will be the next big hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Driver - interesting review. I actually found it really funny but it was the dry, subtle humor I tend to enjoy. Every time Hemsworth came onscreen I started giggling. You're right, he's the funniest part of the movie.

 

For me, it was the quirky dialogue that made it funny. Hemsworth was very good, and I wasn't expecting him to be so funny, but it was more the dialogue between the team that made me laugh.

 

I don't need to bellylaugh to enjoy a comedy, though. A "hey, that's clever!" is enough for me to be thoroughly entertained by a comedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as what was funny, my favorite bits were when McKinnon went full on weird. She was sort of working with the same playbook as Johnny Depp in the original Pirates of the Caribbean. A really odd and outlandish character that by all rights should be annoying, but comes across as extremely charismatic and mesmerizing.

Kristen Wiig's secret weapon is saving her moments for when she dials it up to 11. Good examples are the "Ohhhh myyyy Gooood" and the "Angry Mom" skits from SNL. She has always had a really good knack for coming across as the straight woman in a comedy bit, but then flipping the script and going nuts at just the right moment. Aside from the bit after she got slimed, she didn't really get to do that at all here. The kind of quiet and reserved bits that she had to work with aren't really her style at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it the other day. I liked it much more than I thought I would. It turns out the trailer was garbage and didn't represent the movie well at all. And all the racism, bigotry, and assorted crap Leslie Jones (and others) are enduring...my god. Hey ***holes, you all need to stop it. I feel so sorry for everyone involved. Anyways...

 

The following is a sort of Q&A session for (what I feel) are very relevant questions/concerns I had going in, just general, non-spoilery questions.

 

Q: Is it good enough to justify spending $10 bucks to see? What about $13 for 3D?

A: If you like Paul Feig's work, or comedies in general...yes (despite not being bridesmaids caliber). Ghostbusters fans might be a bit more polarized, so I will say probably. $13 for 3D I would say no...but I'm not a huge 3D fan, and actually prefer non-3D in many situations.

 

Q: How well does it stand on it's own? Is it a complete retread of the original?

A: The story STARTS almost identical to the first film, from the opening shots to the music...and in broad strokes is very much like the original, but ends up standing on it's own fair enough. It focuses more on academia and social media trying to debunk their work, whereas the original they did more ghostBUSTING.

 

Q: How would you grade all three movies? Where does this one stand?

A: In order they came out: A, C, B- Yes, I like it better than the second, but pales in comparison to the first. I know, that's not a fair comparison, but what can ya do. I'm a human being. Its hard for me to not compare the two side-by-side like that.

 

Q: without spoilers, what were the strengths of the movie?

A: the story made sense. Kate McKinnon was very strong. Leslie Jones surprised me...she was very strong as well. She wasn't too loud, obnoxious, or too stereotypical. Kristen Wiig was charming. Melissa McCarthy wasn't "full Tammy". Slimer was perfect! The effects/ghosts looked great. More variety of gadgets, tools, weapons, etc was great. Lots of references to various movies, not just ghostbusters (although there were plenty of those).

 

Q: without spoilers, what were the weaknesses?

A: Not enough/good use of the ghostbusters awesome theme. There were some cheap/lame jokes sprinkled in. Shoe-horning cheap cameos by original cast was unnecessary and annoying, and possibly confusing in a reboot. The villain, despite making (actually) more sense than the original, was very weak. Chris Hemsworth as the dumb but handsome receptionist joke was repeated constantly. We get it! He's dumb. Besides...nobody really acts that way. At times, it felt too slapstick which made it feel like they weren't in any danger at all, or even a little scary. The original had some creepy, scary, even menacing scenes. The biggest weakness though: lake of a "Venkman-like" character. I will explain this more.

 

Bill Murray as Venkman was the single-most awesome thing in ghostbusters, he MADE the movie...but the question is how? Because he GROUNDED the movie. He was funny sure, but his snarky, smug, laid-back, don't-give-a-crap, make-light-of-everything attitude is what was made him and the movie great. By making light of everything, it let's the audience overlook and accept the things that didn't make sense. We relate well to Venkman, so we the audience don't take the movie too seriously...because he doesn't take what's happening around him seriously. it was a very clever little trick, and allows for an "it's only a movie" attitude. Nobody really does that in this movie. I thought it was going to be Kristen Wiig's character, but she didn't serve that purpose, she couldn't be that person, because she was too tied to the story. Venkman was along for the ride, like us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.