Ghostbusters 2016
#31 Posted 19 March 2016 - 07:39 PM
The new Ghostbusters won't suck because it's got all women working on it, it will suck because they're making it a point to have all women working on it. Since when did something like Ghostbusters become the poster child for this anyway? Ghostbusters is well loved, but....I'm sure there are many other more notable and broader reaching IPs that could make more the "impact" they're expecting here than by using Ghostbusters. And it's not like they couldn't do it with anything else out there. Why Ghostbusters? It just sounds like they're cultivating all of this controversy intentionally. I remember hearing about an all-girl Ghostbusters movie a few years ago when the original cast was still going to be involved. Then I saw a clip where Bill Murray was on a talk show saying how he thinks an all-female Ghostbusters team would be a great idea...and I dismissed it then because I didn't really believe that it was possible to be something that anyone would care about....but I got the sense that the whole reason he was on the show and saying these things is because they thought that people MIGHT think there was something wrong with an all-girl Ghostbusters team and someone from the original team, Bill himself, needed to come on to make everybody feel ok about it. I was like "sure, if it's funny and they do a good job, it could work great." Now that I look back I can almost see the underhanded way they were trying to push the idea of a controversy until there was enough people talking about it to give it a negative connotation. Right down to news of oppression and harassment on set and it culminated with the release of a terrible trailer that was totally unfunny and totally generic in its jokes, presentation, and everything. And when people called them out on it they immediately pushed the misogynist alert button. It feels like gamergate all over again. They keep pushing the oppression mindset and aren't LETTING anybody get over it. They just want to accuse people of it.
Am I crazy? Am I really just a sexist pig that needs to check my privilege? Do I dream up conspiracies where there are none? I'm really getting sick of this coercion and I'm getting even sicker of people falling for it. GROW BRAINS. It's late, I'm tired. Rant over. Good night.
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 19 March 2016 - 08:07 PM
#32 Posted 19 March 2016 - 07:43 PM
MusicallyInspired, on 19 March 2016 - 07:39 PM, said:
No.
You are trying to rationalize the irrational. It *will* drive you crazy.
Think of "Last of Us" the video game... I don't know if you've played it but the gist is stereotypical infected humanity.
You are literally surrounded by an infection. Not a joke. Not DNA. Not a ha ha. Not a "it'll all be ok after 30 minutes and a word from our sponsor".
#33 Posted 19 March 2016 - 08:15 PM
#35 Posted 14 June 2016 - 08:38 PM
Quote
I have a feeling this wouldn't fly in the new reboot...
#36 Posted 15 June 2016 - 09:01 AM
Newest trailer features a rehash of Stay Puft and at the end a big ghost (I assume it's the main villian) gets shot in the balls by Mccarty.
No, I'm not making that up.
Seriously, wtf are they doing?
#39 Posted 05 July 2016 - 08:46 AM
I wanted to add a link, but the forum won't let me for some reason. So google at your own risk.
It kinda feels like beating a dead horse at this point, but.. I'm wondering if the marketing is bad on purpose?
After all, it's an garuanteed way to get a lot of free publicity.
In a weird way, I find this whole thing entertaining though. Probably more entertaining than the movie itself will be.
This post has been edited by Merlijn: 05 July 2016 - 08:50 AM
#40 Posted 05 July 2016 - 09:07 AM
#41 Posted 05 July 2016 - 09:13 AM
MusicallyInspired, on 05 July 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:
People tend to vote with there wallets, so while people might not talk shit outright about the movie; people just won't go see it.
#42 Posted 05 July 2016 - 09:33 AM
#43 Posted 05 July 2016 - 09:53 AM
MusicallyInspired, on 05 July 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:
There are the hardcore fanboys; but they exist with any IP *looks around the room*; I doubt the fanboys will make up for the deficit of everyone else that can actually think and judge things for themselves. Personally I'm going to wait until its a $3 movie rental.
#44 Posted 05 July 2016 - 01:04 PM
#45 Posted 05 July 2016 - 02:44 PM
I've seen a version of Hamlet performed set in the era of World War I - so if the Bard can get rebooted, then so can freaking Ghostbusters. Just rebooting it with women instead of men isn't a reason on it's own to hate it. You can't be too precious about these things. Having said that, the version of Hamlet I saw starred Kenneth Branagh, so YMMV
I don't like it as every trailer I've seen looks atrocious, I hate the way they made the black woman a 1930's stereotype. That is why I don't want to see it.
If the reviews come in and it is revealed to be an amazing cinematic experience, then I'll happily go see it - but as Merlijn just said, I highly doubt that as well.
#46 Posted 05 July 2016 - 07:16 PM
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 05 July 2016 - 07:17 PM
#47 Posted 06 July 2016 - 01:46 PM
I might watch some video of it and decide if I want to rent it on netflix.
CatNapDreams
#48 Posted 09 July 2016 - 08:10 PM
#49 Posted 10 July 2016 - 12:10 AM
Movie is almost here, thank God. We'll soon know if the movie is truly as bad as the trailers and clips suggest.
Meanwhile, I added a little "nod" in my map. Couldn't resist...
This post has been edited by Merlijn: 10 July 2016 - 12:11 AM
#50 Posted 10 July 2016 - 01:23 AM
#51 Posted 10 July 2016 - 02:42 AM
Merlijn, on 10 July 2016 - 12:10 AM, said:
Where have you been for the last decade? A supernatural/fantasy action movie with action scenes in front of green screen is shocking indeed.
#52 Posted 10 July 2016 - 03:16 AM
that's my point though, I've seen it countless times before so it's not compelling anymore.
And I don't think a movie like Ghostbusters needs generic "kick-ass" action scenes, but maybe that's just me being old fashioned.
But here's the clip I was referring to, so judge for yourself.
#53 Posted 10 July 2016 - 03:25 AM
And yeah, actors do pretend. By definition.
#54 Posted 10 July 2016 - 03:30 AM
I agree that the uninspired feel is the biggest problem.
#55 Posted 10 July 2016 - 10:04 AM
#56 Posted 10 July 2016 - 10:36 AM
MusicallyInspired, on 10 July 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:
I'll save you the trouble
"YOU FUCKED UP IT UP. YOU GUYS REALLY FUCKED IT UP. *insert skit of Joe's friends here* I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU GUYS FUCKED IT UP"
#57 Posted 10 July 2016 - 02:46 PM
Stuff like how the movie is suppose to bring women into leading roles in future Hollywood films such that it's pushing the feminist agenda while SIMULTANEOUSLY doing things like making the black woman a stereotypical loud minority. And how every single man in the film seems to be either a jerk or an idiot. IMO pushing the feminist agenda like this only works when it's done in a clever, sophisticated and respectful fashion, and that's not the case here.
Also what seems worse is that the chemistry between the 4 leads is nonexistent.
It sounds like everything that can go wrong for this movie has gone wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns up as a textbook example of "how not to make and advertise a movie".
#58 Posted 10 July 2016 - 04:34 PM
I'm repeating myself. Shutting up.
#59 Posted 10 July 2016 - 05:10 PM
MusicallyInspired, on 10 July 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:
I'm repeating myself. Shutting up.
It's all about promoting a narrative. Paul Feig could've easily chosen an all female cast and said nothing more about it, but instead he made such a big song and dance about it to appeal to the progressive crowds (feminists in particular) and decried those who criticised his choice. This is a man who has said in the past that men aren't funny and that geek culture is full of assholes, after all.
http://www.hollywood...en-arent-449025 (Feig on why men "aren't funny")
This post has been edited by Engel220: 10 July 2016 - 05:24 PM