2016 Ghostbusters Tomatometer: I am SHOCKED!


Recommended Posts

benjamine6

I expected, and all of my friends expected, and most of the commenters on the trailer videos expected that the new Ghostbusters REBOOT would get a big fat zero or only a tiny slimmer higher on Rotten tomatoes' Tomatometer.

 

BUT...

I recieved a reply to go check the tomatometer, And to my shock, early ratings put it at a 74/100! Holy crap! So.. I assume it might actually be good...? I don't know. I can't even believe what i'm saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Torolol

eh, i'll stick to what i gonna do, i'm not gonna watch this in any cinema/blu-ray until at least 2018.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Noir Angel

It'll start tanking as it gets more reviews from watchers, as people that aren't shilling start speaking up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Kyle

I don't think that RottenTomatoes has been accurate with their meter in a while. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Noir Angel

And there's some suggestion Sony have been astroturfing the movie pretty hard

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barney T.

Moved to Media Room

Link to post
Share on other sites
George P

Give it a few days and we'll see where it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Xilo

Just going to leave this here...

 

uhKcnEK.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
George P

boxofficemojo has it estimated at $17.2 million for Friday, they tend to estimate things higher than they are, I bet it's lower.  We'll see how it finishes the weekend, they're going with $46million but I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
George P

If it's as empty as those tweets show, I don't see how it makes the projected $46million weekend.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
George P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
spaceship9876

It only  has a 55% viewer rating on rottentomatoes.com. It used to have 77% rating for reviewers, now it is down to 73%. Imdb score is only 4.9/10 rating, if you remove the 1 star and 10 star ratings it has 5.9/10 which is not good. The movie cost $144m to make and they have apparently spent over $100m on promotional costs. If it does make a profit it likely won't be much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Torolol

yea, this should be lesson for movies studios outthere to not recklessly make retarded reboot just because the movies was a gold mine in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DavidM

I'm saddened by all of this, not if this movie sucks or is great, but it means we will never get a proper sequel.

 

Anyhow, I think Sony used the few spiteful reviews on Youtube and SJW rants to their advantage to get people talking about a mediocre movie for far longer than it warranted. In two months hardly anyone will remember this movie, and much less  will even care if it was good or not.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm

actually because it was so bad, they might make a proper follow up to gb2 but with the original surviving cast, i can see that happening more than a sequel to this mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
6 minutes ago, Slarlac249 said:

actually because it was so bad, they might make a proper follow up to gb2 but with the original surviving cast, i can see that happening more than a sequel to this mess.

Source for that, because I can find nothing of the sort and a direct sequel to GB2 was written off literally decades ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm
On ‎01‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 5:07 PM, Nefarious Trigger said:

Source for that, because I can find nothing of the sort and a direct sequel to GB2 was written off literally decades ago?

Just going by all the complaints of the new movie, Aykroyd's comments and rumors, i did read on some site (can't remember which, was some movie news site) a short while back that ideas were being thrown around about a proper sequel....could be something, could be nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
FloatingFatMan
On 05/08/2017 at 9:41 AM, ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm said:

Just going by all the complaints of the new movie, Aykroyd's comments and rumors, i did read on some site (can't remember which, was some movie news site) a short while back that ideas were being thrown around about a proper sequel....could be something, could be nothing.

I think the movie would have worked a LOT better if it had been a generational handover thing, with the surviving original cast looking for a new team to restart the business.  I don't think anyone would have objected to an all female team then.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou
17 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I think the movie would have worked a LOT better if it had been a generational handover thing, with the surviving original cast looking for a new team to restart the business.  I don't think anyone would have objected to an all female team then.

I don't think that would have made any difference. The issue for me was the tone. I didn't think it was a bad film by any means but it wasn't in keeping with the previous installments. Kate McKinnon was tedious; Kristen Wiig was too dopey; Leslie Jones played a tired, exaggerated racial stereotype; Chris Hemsworth's role was completely over-the-top and exaggerated, though he had a few decent moments. In terms of a female cast I think people like Amy Schumer, Tina Fey, Amy Poeler, Elizabeth Banks, Jennifer Aniston, Oprah Winfrey, Ellie Kemper and Kristen Schaal could have worked if the tone was more in keeping with the original.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven P.
On 7/11/2016 at 2:03 AM, Torolol said:

eh, i'll stick to what i gonna do, i'm not gonna watch this in any cinema/blu-ray until at least 2018.

It's almost 2018.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.