Follow TV Tropes

Discussion YMMV / Ghostbusters2016

Go To

Sep 9th 2017 at 1:28:47 PM •••

The entry for "No Such Thing As Bad Publicity" is factually incorrect and poorly worded. While one million downvotes is a lot, it is by no stretch of the imagination a "majority of people who saw it", since the trailer has forty million views.

The second bullet point is also misleading, because it implies the film failed due to bad publicity, as opposed to mass indifference over an unnecessary and unfunny reboot of a beloved film generating the bad publicity in the first place. In the interests of Cautious Editing Judgment, it should be removed.

Mar 18th 2017 at 6:22:49 AM •••

I watched some the movie (couldn't get through the whole thing) and noticed that the Ecto-1 in this movie is a hearse. I thought that was clever (and it was the only part of the movie that made me laugh), so could that be added under Genius Bonus? If so, would that go here on the YMMV page or the main mage?

Edited by KhadgarJones1
Mar 6th 2017 at 8:06:56 AM •••

Could an entry of Broken Base be added to this film? This film's feminist message appears more Anvilicious than that of "Mad Max: Fury Road" (which had two positive male characters in the form of Mad Max himself and War Boy Nux). Since on the YMMV page it states there is a vocal group of fans who consider that film misandrist, and I have seen and heard accusations of misandry leveled against this film, which appears even more Anvilicious, could something similar to the text under Broken Base for "Mad Max: Fury Road" also be applied to this film?

For the text itself: "The film's audience is torn asunder by factions divided by their reading of the film's stance on gender politics. On one side you have a crowd hailing it as a Feminist Fantasy, another in the middle calling it "not-misogynist" but not outright feminist, and a very vocal faction on the other end claiming it's outright misandrist."

Hide/Show Replies
Mar 6th 2017 at 8:37:54 AM •••

My question is this: Are those fans claiming misandry or are those haters? Because Broken Base only applies when the base is the fandom, not humanity as a whole.

Mar 6th 2017 at 8:51:24 AM •••

Larkmarn beat me to it.

At best, you could argue that there could be a broken-base for fans of the Ghostbusters franchise in general, but not for this page.

But even then, it's suspect because what qualifies as "misandrist" for some people is "stars women and not men".

Mar 6th 2017 at 4:16:51 PM •••

lol Larkmarn

Nubian Satyress; you make a good point. The accusation of misandry is because every man in the movie is portrayed as stupid, wrong and/or evil (it happened to Mad Max: Fury Road, as I stated above, which had a more positive portrayal of men).

To put the shoe on the other foot, it's likely if there was a movie where the heroes were all men and every woman was portrayed as stupid, wrong and/or evil it would (understandably) be lambasted so strongly as misogynist it would be cancelled before it even reached cinemas. For me the only reason I don't call this movie misandrist is because I don't know whether that was the intent of the filmmakers (it certainly looks like this or feminist sentiment taken too far, and it's unlikely they'd openly admit to misandry if that played a role). Either way, we can't edit the YMMV page, so I suppose that's for a mod who sees our discussion to decide.

Thanks for the feedback both of you, happy to hear from anyone else.

Edited by Loremasta1
Mar 6th 2017 at 4:34:08 PM •••

"To put the shoe on the other foot, it's likely if there was a movie where the heroes were all men and every woman was portrayed as stupid, wrong and/or evil it would (understandably) be lambasted so strongly as misogynist it would be cancelled before it even reached cinemas."

If we're spreading this claim back a few decades, the second and third Indiana Jones movies would spring to mind. You COULD argue that society has progressed since then, but...

Ultimately, that's the problem here. Arguing that GB 2016's treatment of genders would be a Double Standard if flupped invites the assumption that people have moved on so much that they also hate classics with the exact same problems. However, if it WAS brought up, this topic is so politicized that the same people condemning GB 2016 would defend the second and third Indy films to the death.

Edited by NubianSatyress
Mar 7th 2017 at 12:28:21 AM •••

If I recall correctly, there were some women in the second Indiana Jones film who weren't portrayed as stupid, wrong or evil; admittedly they were background characters such as dancers and the villagers wanting their missing children back and I could be wrong; that does bring to mind the problem that those two Indiana Jones movies had a shortage of female characters in general, but that is another issue. I don't recall a single man who wasn't one of the three aforementioned traits in Ghostbusters 2016, even among the background characters.

Nonetheless you raise an interesting point. There have been similar problems among older films. Perhaps we see it differently, Nubian Satyress, and that's what the YMMV page is for. I also appreciate how you two (Lark and Nubian) are so civil on a subject that can be charged like gender politics. Thank you. I would still like to add it and would like to hear the ideas of others on what to add.

Lark, maybe it is or maybe it isn't the haters making such accusation, I would have to check that. Though it doesn't strain credulity to imagine that there are people who like the movie but thinks it portrays men too negatively.

Edited by Loremasta1
Mar 7th 2017 at 4:36:23 AM •••

I'm going to be blunt: your tone makes it sound like you're trying too hard to be "civil". It's a tad bit creepy.

That aside, your last response makes it seem as though this request is coming from your own opinion. First, by using your own watching of the film to question whether every man was "stupid", "evil", or whatever, and then by arguing that you believe it wouldn't "strain credibility to imagine" people who hold a certain opinion about the film.

Those two points are making it seem very likely that this is a personal grievance.

Mar 7th 2017 at 8:43:44 AM •••

So the thing is, you're still not even making the claim that it's a broken base within the fandom. You're making the claim that there is material that could theoretically lead to a Broken Base which is not something we'd care to document.

Sep 22nd 2016 at 6:53:11 PM •••

I'm on Tumblr — she definitely has one. Hell, so does the rest of the movie, though Holtzmann is the main draw for it.

Sep 17th 2016 at 3:24:32 PM •••

The Genre Savvy example is misused as having nothing to do with familiarity with in-universe fiction, can someone clean that up.

Aug 11th 2016 at 8:34:18 PM •••

I think Holtzmann should go under Base Breaking Character, since it feels like everyone I've seen talk about this movie thought she was either one of the best or one of the worst parts of it.

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 12th 2016 at 9:11:45 AM •••

Really? Because I've almost only heard the "best part of it" side.

Oct 14th 2016 at 4:23:22 PM •••

I was going to suggest putting her under Ensemble Darkhorse. Pretty much every review I've read praises Kate McKinnon as the best part of the film.

Jul 19th 2016 at 10:35:14 AM •••

Per TRS, They Just Didn't Care is now a Trivia trope requiring Word of God that they didn't care, could someone cut the example here please?

Jul 19th 2016 at 10:26:18 AM •••

Once unlocked, would it be possible to add Leslie Jones in as a real-life woobie? She's been hit with a ton of racist abuse since the release of the film.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 19th 2016 at 4:36:12 PM •••

Real-Life examples are usually a no-no under topics like The Woobie, but she should be mentioned under Harsher in Hindsight or Funny Aneurysm.

Jul 19th 2016 at 7:18:30 PM •••

... No, she shouldnt be mebtioned for any of those.

Also, are you arguing with yourself?

Jul 20th 2016 at 12:18:03 PM •••

All right. I was thinking maybe Harsher in Hindsight in reference to her line about it being a "lady thing or a race thing" (especially since a lot of the insults are directed at her race and gender) but if it's not appropriate it's not appropriate.

And nope. I'm Dr Sleep (with Doctor abbreviated), the person who responded is Doctor Sleep (with Doctor fully spelt out). I'm not sure if they came before or after me but I assure you we are two separate people.

Aug 11th 2016 at 8:30:47 PM •••

I'm wondering if her character should be added to Tainted by the Preview, since most sources I've seen have said the trailers made her character look a lot more stereotypical than she actually was in the movie.

Jul 18th 2016 at 3:30:24 PM •••

Once unlocked, Win Back the Crowd may be worth including. While the film has not gotten completely positive reviews, the film's gotten mostly positive reviews and better reactions than the initial trailer reactions suggested it'd get.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 24th 2016 at 3:54:30 PM •••

Doesn't seem like it's really the same thing. As far as I'm reading into it, Win Back the Crowd is when a running series starts losing its audience and the creator changes something to make up for it.

This is more of a case of the previews, trailers, TV spots, and controversy making the movie extremely divisive and it just turned out to not be as bad as people thought it could be.

Also if we're being completely honest, I've seen some fairly unbiased sources say the movie outright sucked, so I don't know if even now if the movie is "redeemed" enough to qualify.

Jul 24th 2016 at 4:42:55 PM •••

But there's also ones that say it's okay or even good.

Edited by NubianSatyress
Jul 28th 2016 at 8:26:46 PM •••

That doesn't reflect the majority. While there are some reviewers who say it was good there are open minded reviewers who still say the movie was disappointing. The only way this trope is in effect is when everyone agrees the movie wasn't bad. To say that you'd have to end up ignoring the negative comments, which would be borderline biased in favor of the movie.

So Ok It's Average would be an appropriate term. Especially judging from the critical reviews.

Jul 30th 2016 at 2:06:14 PM •••

So Ok It's Average does not reflect the majority of reviews, particularly if you check out Rotten Tomatoes. Also the way the trope description is worded implies that favorable reviews are "biased in favour of the film," which is just silly. It also says that most reviews say it's "not a good film," which is not only inaccurate, but doesn't even go with the trope. I request that it be removed or at least reworded.

Jul 30th 2016 at 3:17:30 PM •••

Removing the trope implies that everybody likes the movie. Despite the fact that it's a critically divided movie at best. Can't pretend that everybody liked the film. I'd be happy to reword it, though. If it weren't locked.

Edited by eaterofworlds
Jul 30th 2016 at 10:46:56 PM •••

Removing the trope does not imply that everybody likes the movie. That's not what "So Okay It's Average" is. I'd think "Love It or Hate It" is more in line, but that seems to have already been dismissed?

Jul 18th 2016 at 1:53:08 PM •••

edits need to be made to reflect that in the actual film, Patty is actually very well read and brings a wealth of historical knowledge to the film. 'Book Dumb' she is not.

Jul 28th 2016 at 8:28:21 PM •••

If you looked at the YMMV section it's already cut.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: