Originally posted by Firefly218
The average score on metacritic from 52 of the most popular critics is 60%. In terms of score brackets, ghostbusters is neck and neck with Age of Ultron (66%), Deadpool (64%), Fast and Furious 6 (61%), James Bond Spectre (60%), Anchorman 2 (61%), Godzilla (60%), Kingsman: Secret Service (58%) and Every Thor movie (57% and 54%). And that's just naming a few.So if you wanna say ghostbusters is terrible you have to say that for every other movie that gets a similar critical reception.
For me it's rather a collection of things, though I can't speak for anyone else. General audiences seem to dislike the movie a lot more than the critics. Which is reflected in both the reactions and the box office.
Obviously Sony was also pretty ashamed of the reviews.
Also no offense but you seem to be taking this oddly personal.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Did you hear Leslie Jones just got harassed off Twitter with death threats, pictures of guys' dicks covered in semen and extreme bullying? Seriously that happened.
What is funny about this though is that Milo tweeted to her that she was illiterate and looked like a man. Then some of his followers harassed her and Milo got banned from Twitter because did you know it wasn't allowed for you to tell your followers to harass someone?
Did you also know Milo never once told anyone to do that, but he still got banned for shit his fans said anyways?
More Twitter facts, did you know technically racism is also bannable? Did you also know poor wittle Leslie didn't get banned from Twitter despite her tweeting seemingly racist shit?
Yet they leave the ISIS twitter accounts alone lol. I love it:
Originally posted by Firefly218
Whatever man it's cool if you're not seeing ghostbusters
Just saying maybe it's a silver lining Leslie left twitter.
As for Ghostbusters, I'll probably see this awful film once it comes to netflix.
Actually let me rephrase: I will attempt to watch this film once it comes to netflix in probably 3 months. I will give no guarantee's I will sit all the way through because there is no reason to sit there through 90 minutes of the movie if it's basically just 90 minutes of the trailer. So I won't purposely just force feed myself this film in it's entirety like I am sure so many poor people did.
Originally posted by SurturI told you the trailer is bad. It's not just bad but it's terrible. But the moments shown in the trailer are small in the movie and in context feel much different. But you and others have already decided a movie you haven't seen is bad so...
Just saying maybe it's a silver lining Leslie left twitter.As for Ghostbusters, I'll probably see this awful film once it comes to netflix.
Actually let me rephrase: I will attempt to watch this film once it comes to netflix in probably 3 months. I will give no guarantee's I will sit all the way through because there is no reason to sit there through 90 minutes of the movie if it's basically just 90 minutes of the trailer. So I won't purposely just force feed myself this film in it's entirety like I am sure so many poor people did.
Originally posted by Silent MasterAnytime someone is particularly technical about something they're bullshitting. You've clearly been manipulating the data to fit your slanted anti-ghostbusters agenda. You never explicitly stated yourself that it's terrible, but put up links to other people who think it is and spew on and on your pseudo facts.
I clearly explained to you why GA reviews were untrustworthy. Because you don't have to have seen the movie before reviewing. This means both ppl predisposed to love it or hate it can give a score, compromising the whole thing. Then I showed you that the critics score generally favored the movie, via metacritic the top critics rank ghostbusters among movies like Spectre and Fast and Furious 6.
So why are you still bitching?
Now that we have established that you lied when you said that I claimed the movie was terrible, we can move on to your so-called explanation as to why the general audience scores are untrustworthy. what you actually mean to say is you think that they are untrustworthy, however considering their scores are roughly the same as those of the top critics your argument doesn't really have any merit at all.
Anyways to those who have seen this, just how are men portrayed overall in this film?
Like for instance you know how in the first Ghostbusters you had the library scene with the scary female ghost lady. But I'm hearing that in this movie the opening ghost is a male ghost that poops himself. I probably just heard wrong or something.
Originally posted by Silent MasterWow you really are a complete fuking idiot. There's no brain in there to reason with. From now on I'm gonna do myself a favor and just ignore you
Now that we have established that you lied when you said that I claimed the movie was terrible, we can move on to your so-called explanation as to why the general audience scores are untrustworthy. what you actually mean to say is you think that they are untrustworthy, however considering their scores are roughly the same as those of the top critics your argument doesn't really have any merit at all.
Okay Firefly how about this: you might of explained this before, but I will just ask again..what did you enjoy about this movie?
For instance, how was the villain? Good or bad to you? Did the motivations of the villain make sense? What about overall performances? Did anyone's overall performance just scream greatness to you, or was it maybe just you liked a couple of the jokes someone might of done?
When you were watching this movie did you get the sense you were watching something lovingly crafted by someone who just adores the franchise and wants to do right by it?
Was there anything lazy about the film?
Originally posted by Surtur
Anyways to those who have seen this, just how are men portrayed overall in this film?Like for instance you know how in the first Ghostbusters you had the library scene with the scary female ghost lady. But I'm hearing that in this movie the opening ghost is a male ghost that poops himself. I probably just heard wrong or something.
Originally posted by SurturI thought the film was done cleverly and uniquely. There were some nice jump scares. The cast meshed well and had an easy back and forth. The jokes were pretty witty and had me smiling consistently. There were great moments and it's just a fun time.
Okay Firefly how about this: you might of explained this before, but I will just ask again..what did you enjoy about this movie?For instance, how was the villain? Good or bad to you? Did the motivations of the villain make sense? What about overall performances? Did anyone's overall performance just scream greatness to you, or was it maybe just you liked a couple of the jokes someone might of done?
When you were watching this movie did you get the sense you were watching something lovingly crafted by someone who just adores the franchise and wants to do right by it?
Was there anything lazy about the film?
Kate McKinnon's performance in particular was amazing and popped off the screen. She stole every scene she was in.
Wait was "Secret Life of Pets" supposed to be a heavy hitter? Since as terrible as I feel this movie is..I honestly expected it to be #1 for at least it's opening week. I was legitimately shocked actually that it wasn't, I expected a #1 debut with dismal numbers. I figured that is why they shoved into an opening week where no other big movies seemed to be opening.
Also damn Secret Life of Pets has made $290 million on a budget of $75 million.
Originally posted by Firefly218
The opening ghost is a female ghost, not a male ghost. And it's the person who poops himself.I thought the film was done cleverly and uniquely. There were some nice jump scares. The cast meshed well and had an easy back and forth. The jokes were pretty witty and had me smiling consistently. There were great moments and it's just a fun time.
Kate McKinnon's performance in particular was amazing and popped off the screen. She stole every scene she was in.
Do you like it better than the original?