- Averted. This movie has been confirmed to be a reboot. Furthermore, although original cast members will appear, not only are they just cameos but they're playing different characters in the original movie.
- Alternatively they will all die horrible and embarrassing deaths as a Take That! at the fans of the original who were complaining about the new movie.
- Played with. The cameo characters all have shades of their original character (Murray's a skeptic like he was at the start of the original, Hudson is Patty's uncle, Aykroyd knows a lot about ghosts for a cabbie, Potts is an angry receptionist and Weaver... has big hair, but they're mostly there for gags and inside jokes, not really a passing-the-torch thing. Murray's character DOES nearly die a very embarrassing death, however.
- He is played by Ernie Hudson, but he isn't the same character.
- I'm assuming that rating was gathered with a cursory look at the "All Critics" tab on opening day. Three days later, Ghostbusters 2016 when checked on the "Top Critics" tab rate it at 57% with a Average Rating of 6.3/10 from 47 reviews counted (Fresh: 27, Rotten: 20). The audience giving it 57% as well with Average Rating of 3.1/5 from 84,167 Rotten Tomatoes users. As for generally positive reviews? The film has only been out for three days at the time of this writing and a good amount of the reviews being given are ranging from "Meh" and "Mediocre" with the odd "Best Film EVAR!!" to enraged (see Angry Joe's review).
- It is worth noting the audience score was originally 44% at 77,000 reviews before the film was even out on opening day. It's actually increased 13% since the film's official opening. Likewise, the IMD score was initially 3.1/10 before release and has increased 2 points since then. Meanwhile, for critic reviews, a fair amount of reviews also go beyond "meh" and "mediocre" to "enjoyable but could be better" and otherwise.
- As for box-office, initial predictions from Sony was for a $30 million opening weekend in the US/Canada, and it actually took in about $46 mill. It opened at #1 in the UK, Australia and Brazil, and #2 (behind Secret Life of Pets) domestically.
- The initial predictions are worth noting cause Sony lowered it from $40-50 million, which it made. Maybe Sony was playing it safe, but other studios normally stick with their initial predictions. Not to mention it's looking very iffy if it will make the money necessary to be successful, as making $46 million opening weekend on a film costing $144 million is not a good showing for any big budget film these days.
- FWIW according to Box Office Mojo, as of 27 July 2016 the movie had made a combined domestic and international total of $122,430,923 — in other words, around 85% of its budget. That's not exactly a box office smash, true, but it's not quite a bomb either (or, at least, not quite the bomb I suspect the OP was suggesting it would be), particularly since it's still in many cinemas so will probably rake in a bit more until it finally gets pulled. Many movies which underperform at the box-office also go on to make a profit, or at least break even, when profits from DVD and Blu-Ray sales, licensing, and so forth are factored in, and it seems likely that Ghostbusters will probably benefit from that as well. Furthermore, if this is to be believed, Sony overall seems happy enough with its performance — or, at least, did after the opening weekend discussed above. In short, while it hasn't exactly set the world alight and could probably have done much better, the movie's probably not going to be the critical and commercial disaster that its more passionate detractors were hoping for either.
- Yes, FWIW, Ghostbusters 2016 has earned about 85% of its' production budget so far. And other then the $144 million Sony stated it cost to make the film, they've been very tight lipped about how much the total cost was, as Tom Rothman (Deadpool's biggest real life foe) wouldn't say when asked in interviews. Sony is still in damage control and trying to show a strong hand in the publics eye. But Paul Feig wasn't as tight lipped on that subject. In a interview with Jada Yuan for Vulture.Com [1], Feig stated “A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and that’s probably low.” With the figures from Box Office Mojo provided and Feig's blurting out of that total, Ghostbusters 2016 chances of breaking even are looking very slim since Feig has pretty much said the film cost $250 million total to make. The OP wasn't suggesting the film is a bomb. They were saying it's bombing given the lackluster opening weekend and the (at the time) upcoming films the following week.
- The film also isn't performing well overseas either; as of July 31st it's only made $51.7 million with only 7 left to open (not to mention that it's been Banned in China, the box office powerhouse of the world). That means that unless the film catches fire in one of the remaining territories, such as Japan, the film will probably barely squeak past $100 million overseas. Combine that with the total domestic gross which will likely end up at around $120-125 million and you have a film that is doing poorly considering its high budget of $144 million (not including marketing) and the fact that it is intended to kickstart a new franchise. Not a Fant4stic level bomb, but still a box office dud that could very easily send this incarnation of the team back to their graves and make it likely that Paul Feig will not be given the keys to a big budget studio film again.
- He's screwing over New York City a second time of his own free will but casting an illusion of his brother's face so Thor earns the wrath of untold whiny millions instead of him. Why? For the Lulz probably. It's Loki!
- This explains his startling lack of sense and incompetence; he's trolling the new ghostbusters and is laughing his ass off on the inside.
- The team doesn't look, speak nor act in the scientist manner than the original team did, they lick radioactive weapons, and Abby start doing cartwheels in the middle of the movie. This would be a miracle. The kind of miracle that would need a god. The god of thunder, maybe? Part of his dimwitted acts are Obfuscating Stupidity and some more are being a Fish out of Temporal Water.
- Also, Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum will be a pair of Ghostbusters in a gay relationship. The movie will set this up to be a joke, and then...not make a joke about it...they're two heroic protectors of the world who are also dating... The fact that it's not being made into a joke will be extensively lampshaded for humorous effect.
- well they bought She-Ra back
- Alternatively, she works for the MTA because it's all she can get. It can be tough for humanities graduates out there in the non-academic world...
- As an addition, Rowan's plan only worked in the first place because the events of the last two films, still being relatively recent in the grand scheme of things, had severely weakened the resistance of the local ley lines, allowing the easier creation of a vortex.
- In fact, if we want to explain the similarities, via the previous WMG, maybe the 2016 dimension is the original one, and the 1984 dimension is the result of Gozer tampering, in the twenties, to get Ivo Shandor to build 55 Central Park West. Until that point, they were the same universe, and they're still linked psychically in some manner.
Confirmed by All There in the Manual (as discussed on the main page). But even in the context of the film itself, he must have survived and been conscious after his fall for the Ghostbusters not to have been arrested (or at least under serious investigation) for throwing him out of the window.
- Anti-confirmed actually. He seems to have not realized it yet, but he writes the new foreword and the notes on the second edition mention that it includes "a new foreword by an actual ghost".
- That would explain why the slime missed during the big battle in the climax (as Erin lampshades); she had shed enough negativity towards herself by that point of the film to no longer attract it.
It's why she's always wearing long sleeves (Maggie's tattoos only go down to her elbows). We never learn Maggie's street name, and she's the right age (in Whip It, set in the mid-2000s) to be taking some time between undergrad and grad school. And also a contributing factor to her uptightness in the mid-2010s Ghostbusters: She's new enough to academia that she's already feeling out of place between her childhood ghost encounters and the fact that she's got a son in the first couple of years of college himself.