Anonymous wrote:IT WAS SOOOO GOOOD!!!! And the haters are making me giggle.

Also, my friends are in nearly unanimous consensus that we want to either be or marry Kate McKinnon.

DH and I both left the movie with major crushes on her.

IT WAS SOOOO GOOOD!!!! And the haters are making me giggle.

Also, my friends are in nearly unanimous consensus that we want to either be or marry Kate McKinnon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ghostbusters-the-bros-who-hate-it-and-the-art-of-modern-misogyny/2016/07/14/1dfba61a-49bd-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html?hpid=hp_regional-hp-cards_rhp-card-columnists%3Ahomepage%2Fcard

Article in WaPo

Anonymous wrote:
Per Rotten Tomatoes...

Original Ghostbusters:
-- Tomamometer: 97%
-- Audience score: 88%

New Ghostbusters:
-- Tomamometer: 73%
-- Audience score: 57%

Pretty clear results. They've turned a very original movie from 1984 into a mediocre movie in 2016.

So 3 out of 4 Rotten Tomatoes critics endorsed it and the audience ratings remained above 50% despite all the pathetic losers determined to take it down? Sounds like a solid comedy, even if we actually could take your dubious data as "clear results."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Per Rotten Tomatoes...

Original Ghostbusters:
-- Tomamometer: 97%
-- Audience score: 88%

New Ghostbusters:
-- Tomamometer: 73%
-- Audience score: 57%

Pretty clear results. They've turned a very original movie from 1984 into a mediocre movie in 2016.

Anti ghostbusters who won't see the movie, let it go. There is an article in the WP today on this very topic, supporting the FACT that audience members have ranked it higher than critics and that many of the negative scores of the movie (like on IMBD, etc) were calculated BEFORE the movie was even nationally released. I am really shocked at all the anti female ghostbusters brew haha. I've seen it. It's a funny movie.

Hello conspiracy theorist!! Believe it or not, most people couldn't care less about the gender of main characters...

Anonymous wrote:
Per Rotten Tomatoes...

Original Ghostbusters:
-- Tomamometer: 97%
-- Audience score: 88%

New Ghostbusters:
-- Tomamometer: 73%
-- Audience score: 57%

Pretty clear results. They've turned a very original movie from 1984 into a mediocre movie in 2016.

Anti ghostbusters who won't see the movie, let it go. There is an article in the WP today on this very topic, supporting the FACT that audience members have ranked it higher than critics and that many of the negative scores of the movie (like on IMBD, etc) were calculated BEFORE the movie was even nationally released. I am really shocked at all the anti female ghostbusters brew haha. I've seen it. It's a funny movie.

Per Rotten Tomatoes...

Original Ghostbusters:
-- Tomamometer: 97%
-- Audience score: 88%

New Ghostbusters:
-- Tomamometer: 73%
-- Audience score: 57%

Pretty clear results. They've turned a very original movie from 1984 into a mediocre movie in 2016.

Saw it yesterday, loved it, along with my 2 friends (one male, one female) and the rest of the people in the sold out theater.

Then you are missing out on a very good, funny movie just because you don't like to see women as ghostbusters? That says a lot about you. Do you listen to every critic? Why not give it a chance and see for yourself?

If you do go, wait to the very end as they have extra scenes. Bill Murray, Signorney Weaver ( sorry I am a terrible speller) and Dan Aykroyd are all in it so that proves they support it..yes, they may have done it for the money too ( I am not naive) but them showing up in it says a lot.


So you haven't seen the movie? Then no one cares about your opinion about whether the movie is any good.

Where in the heck did you get the idea I did not see the movie? Why would I comment on a movie I haven't seen? Yes, we saw the movie last night and LOVED it. Now do I get your permission to say something, Mr or Ms. movie critic???

Anonymous wrote:Of course I have not, and will not, see it. Why should I? I have read several objective reviews, and they lean towards the terrible.
[Report Post]


Then you are missing out on a very good, funny movie just because you don't like to see women as ghostbusters? That says a lot about you. Do you listen to every critic? Why not give it a chance and see for yourself?

If you do go, wait to the very end as they have extra scenes. Bill Murray, Signorney Weaver ( sorry I am a terrible speller) and Dan Aykroyd are all in it so that proves they support it..yes, they may have done it for the money too ( I am not naive) but them showing up in it says a lot.

So you haven't seen the movie? Then no one cares about your opinion about whether the movie is any good.

Of course I have not, and will not, see it. Why should I? I have read several objective reviews, and they lean towards the terrible.
[Report Post]


Then you are missing out on a very good, funny movie just because you don't like to see women as ghostbusters? That says a lot about you. Do you listen to every critic? Why not give it a chance and see for yourself?

If you do go, wait to the very end as they have extra scenes. Bill Murray, Signorney Weaver ( sorry I am a terrible speller) and Dan Aykroyd are all in it so that proves they support it..yes, they may have done it for the money too ( I am not naive) but them showing up in it says a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally taking my kids. I love this cast. The original is good, but there definitely was some inappropriate sexual innuendo in it, I don't know why everyone acts like the first one was so perfect.

The first one was funny and made sense when it came out like 30 years ago.

This one is simply pathetic.

Have you even seen it or are you just complaining about it because your neckbeard is itchy?

Of course I have not, and will not, see it. Why should I? I have read several objective reviews, and they lean towards the terrible.

Kevin McCarthy on FOX 5 (if you are in DC, you know who he is) went 4 out of 5, and credited the conversion of 3-D as something different. It was over 70% on RT.

However, the budget is very high for this (close to $150 mil), and who knows what the marketing costs were. The box office this coming weekend will be telling to see how much it drops, which would be because of word of mouth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally taking my kids. I love this cast. The original is good, but there definitely was some inappropriate sexual innuendo in it, I don't know why everyone acts like the first one was so perfect.

The first one was funny and made sense when it came out like 30 years ago.

This one is simply pathetic.

Have you even seen it or are you just complaining about it because your neckbeard is itchy?

Of course I have not, and will not, see it. Why should I? I have read several objective reviews, and they lean towards the terrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally taking my kids. I love this cast. The original is good, but there definitely was some inappropriate sexual innuendo in it, I don't know why everyone acts like the first one was so perfect.

The first one was funny and made sense when it came out like 30 years ago.

This one is simply pathetic.

Have you even seen it or are you just complaining about it because your neckbeard is itchy?

Yeah, dude. There are creams for that.

Anonymous wrote:Movie is bombing hopefully they stop wasting money on these PC women movies

Shut your pie hole! What the hell is a "PC women movies"? Have you actually seen this movie? It did $46M in the box office this weekend. Not bad considering all the bad press from men.