Yet another Ghostbusters movie

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yeah, his work has been off for a while, though it pains me to say it. Big Eyes is probably the best thing he's done in recent years. And arguably, the least "Burtonesque."

Tim Burton's movies have been on a steep decline in quality, so I'm not sure if I'd even like the final product if I finally got to see it. But I do want to see more Beetlejuice. It is a movie that would benefit well from today's improved visual effects... but then again, Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory shows that this isn't always a plus.

 

[Deset Gled]

Well, as far as the dedicated fans go ... I mean, there just weren't a lot of even good movies in the 80s, and certainly not a lot that even vaguely appealed to the more nerdy.

But I think a lot of people here are really devaluing the term "classic." There's nothing wrong with being a good, enjoyable movie, right? Those are hard enough to make. But it's not like we're discussing Vertigo, or Citizen Kane, or the oeuvre of Buster Keaton.

But I will let you in on a little secret- the movie, as a whole, just isn't that good. The directing (you know, what we can refer to as the cinematography and all the things that make up the film) is, at best, par for the 80s. The pacing sucks. It's not scary.

And ... it's not that funny...

If Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Tron, War Games, Terminator, Buckaroo Bonzai, ET, Flash Gordon, Excalibur, and Blade Runner aren't vaguely appealing to your more nerdy side...

If the benchmark to be considered "classic" is that a film must be 60 years old and studied by art students...

And if you just plain don't like Ghostbusters, claiming it's neither funny nor scary...

Then, maybe a thread about Ghostbusters just isn't your cup of tea. Would you mind if the rest of us enjoy it without you?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Deset Gled]

But I do want to see more Beetlejuice. It is a movie that would benefit well from today's improved visual effects... but then again, Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory shows that this isn't always a plus.

I'm worried about new special effects for Beetlejuice. So much of the "feel" of that movie was in the practicals. From the sets to the wacky costumes, it was all about the physical stuff. Also, I love stop-motion animation. If you try to recreate all that in CGI, you could kill it fast. In a lot of ways, I think the 2016 Ghostbusters suffered from this, too. None of the cartoon ghosts in that one came close to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

I could be wrong. The new Mad Max showed that you can blend CGI and real world stuff well, and animation like the Gruffalo shows you can make CGI match clay pretty well. But I'm definitely leery.

 

[Tonguez]

And there is a huge difference between thinking a movie was entertaining (which I have stated) and enjoying aspects of it, and thinking it is some holy text needing canonization and protection from mean people that might point out its flaws and/or enjoy a version of it that isn't trapped in amber by people that have more respect for the past than the present.

But carry on!

by that criteria, there are no classic movies and really unless you're a critic or a film student all the pontificating about Citizen Kanes cinematography and multiple genre is meaningless, audiences want to be entertained and the fact is of all the 80's movies Ghostbusters stands out as the most entertaining.
I loved Buckaroo Banzai and Star Wars and the other 80s movies but Ghostbusters is the one that I can sing along to, quote and smile as I recall its characters and antics (even moreso than Flash Gordon which I'd put second). It doesnt need to be the most funny or most scary because it has a particular energy and 80s-ness that I beleive is the reason it has endured so long.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[billd91]

So here's why I really dislike all of this, using your post as an example (sorry to single you out for this, really)-

First, there's this bizarre, but undeniable, strain of anti-intellectualism. Which is so amazingly strange to me, given that many of us fought pitched battles so that so-called nerd culture and intellectual pursuits would no longer be marginalized by mainstream culture.

And now that we have comic book movies that are half-way decent, what have we done? We have seen the enemy, and he is us. We are the dumb jocks, grousing about how those egghead intellectuals might "pontiticat[e] about Citizen Kane[']s cinematography and multiple genres[,]" but how dare they speak out about DERP POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT! HAVE THOSE NERDS EVER LAUGHED AT A REAL MOVIE? HAVE THEY EVER THROWN A FOOTBALL?

It would be shameful, if it wasn't so sad. What else, maybe "Science is for losers?" Only dorks understand a standard deviation?

There's a fine line between intellectualism and elitism, between artistic merit and snobbery. Repudiation of elitism isn't the same as anti-intellectualism. Classic cinema shouldn't be reserved just for movies conducive to overanalysis and overwrought film school theses. Mainstream movies may also be classics due to their success in maintaining their relevance, their resonance with their viewers, use or even establishment of tropes, as well as other things I'm not going to bother to add here.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[cbwjm]

All I care about is how entertaining a movie is. I dont care about cinematography or how great a shot is. If I was going to sit down with someone and they said I had the choice of citizen Kane or Ghostbusters, I'd choose Ghostbusters every time. I find it more entertaining and I think it still holds up well as a great movie.