New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer

[Grendel_Khan]

One of my favorite recurring themes in fandom/geekdom: folks loudly touting the good reviews for a much-anticipated release when the reviews are, in fact, good...and then saying, "Ah, who needs reviews anyway!?" when they're not.

 

[Morrus]

One of my favorite recurring themes in fandom/geekdom: folks loudly touting the good reviews for a much-anticipated release when the reviews are, in fact, good...and then saying, "Ah, who needs reviews anyway!?" when they're not.

You are very clever.

And having shown me the error of my ways you have convinced me to reverse my decision and not see the film.

Wait. No. The opposite thing.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

You are very clever.

And having shown me the error of my ways you have convinced me to reverse my decision and not see the film.

Wait. No. The opposite thing.

Ah yes, my mission in life, to make sure people don't see a movie!

Everyone should always see whatever they want. I'm just trying to point out how folks tend to use reviews in these kinds of situations, or boldly proclaim that reviews don't matter, etc., as though the point of critics is simply to tell people whether to watch something or not. The better of those reviews I linked to have interesting things to say about fan service and nostalgia. They're about as interested in whether you personally are going to see it as I am (no offense, of course).

 

[Morrus]

They're about as interested in whether you personally are going to see it as I am (no offense, of course).

Weird thread to be participating in, or person to be responding too, then. .shrug:

 

[MarkB]

One of my favorite recurring themes in fandom/geekdom: folks loudly touting the good reviews for a much-anticipated release when the reviews are, in fact, good...and then saying, "Ah, who needs reviews anyway!?" when they're not.

As opposed to the ones loudly touting the poor reviews for a release they've decided in advance will be garbage, and dismissing them if they're positive?

 

[payn]

As opposed to the ones loudly touting the poor reviews for a release they've decided in advance will be garbage, and dismissing them if they're positive?

Yeap, two can certainly play at that game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Reviews really only matter if you're on the fence imho. Generally they're useless imho.

More inclined to go with word of mouth.

 

[AtomicPope]

I'm on the fence for this one. I didn't like the reboot and Akroyd's criticism of Paul Fiege made more sense after seeing it.

"[Ghostbusters] made a lot of money around the world but just cost too much, making it economically not feasible to do another one. So that’s too bad. The director, he spent too much on it. He didn’t shoot scenes we suggested to him and several scenes that were going to be needed and he said, ‘Nah, we don’t need them.’ Then we tested the movie and they needed them and he had to go back. About $30 to $40-million in reshoots. So he will not be back on the Sony lot any time soon."

That's a LOT of money on reshoots, which tells me there was no clear plan from the director. But enough about that.

The problem I have with reboots are the same problem I have with George Lucas "remastering" Star Wars and having Han shoot second. People change. Art is a product of its time. When Lucas went back to Star Wars he was a different man. The new George wanted to tell a different story so he did it by rewriting the original and completely ruining Han Solo's story arc from an untrustworthy scoundrel to a stalwart friend.

Why would I think Ghostbusters will be any different?

Also, Finn Wolfhard is growing way too fast. He's going to be the size of Stay Puft if they have any reshoots.

 

[Imaculata]

I think this movie will be just fine.

As long as they don't throw in a CGI Harold Ramis, it will be just fine....

...just fine... -nervous twitching-

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Guardian reviewers tends to be pretty harsh.

And are known for looking down on Science Fiction and Fantasy.