Ghostbusters except possibly better? "Coming in 2020"
#31 Posted 19 January 2019 - 02:29 PM
Truer words have seldom been spoken.
#32 Posted 19 January 2019 - 02:42 PM
#33 Posted 19 January 2019 - 02:52 PM
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 19 January 2019 - 02:53 PM
#34 Posted 19 January 2019 - 03:26 PM
Mark, on 19 January 2019 - 02:29 PM, said:
Truer words have seldom been spoken.
I'm not sure if it's that, or if it's fact that it would never even occur to them to not block dissenting viewpoints. Shutting down opposition in every way possible is the default response to opposition. Think of how a small child behaves -- they are certainly not interested in hearing opposing viewpoints; you have to actually learn to value the freedom of others before it would even occur to you to not shut them down.
The idea of a "fair competition" is itself alien to the leftist way of thinking. Competition has winners and losers -- it's an engine for inequality. So, competition itself is antithetical to outcome equality.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I doubt that most of them even think it through far enough to conclude that they need to avoid a fair debate because they would lose it. They are opposed to any debate in the first place and will happily shut it down whether they think they would win or not.
#36 Posted 19 January 2019 - 06:44 PM
“Que resterait-il de la capacité d’influence d’une France qui se retrouverait affaiblie politiquement, économiquement et moralement ?
Cette gauche qui fait la morale aux autres mais qui ne s’applique jamais à elle-même ses leçons de morale. Cette gauche qui déteste l’argent, sauf quand c’est le sien. Cette gauche qui condamne la réussite, sauf quand c’est la sienne. Cette gauche qui ne passe rien aux autres mais qui se permet tout. Cette gauche qui se permet de trier entre les bons français, ceux qui pensent comme elle, et les mauvais Français, ceux qui ne pensent pas comme elle. Cette gauche, c’est le contraire de l’idéal républicain.
La gauche donne des leçons de république, mais la république, la gauche l’a abîmée. La Ve république, qui est pourtant la plus belle expression institutionnelle et politique jamais donnée à l’idéal républicain… écoutez le candidat de la gauche, il rêve d’un retour à la IVe république. D’un retour à la république de l’impuissance. L’idée qu’il se fait du rôle du président de la république, c’est celle d’un président qui ne prend plus aucune responsabilité, qui ne nomme plus personne, qui ne décide de rien et qui à chaque fois qu’il y a un problème réunit une commission.
Le candidat de gauche veut bien présider, il ne veut pas gouverner. Parce que gouverner c’est trop difficile et c’est trop risqué. A quoi sert d’élire un président au suffrage universel, comme l’a voulu le général de Gaulle, si ce président ne gouverne pas, si ce président n’est pas responsable, si ce président ne s’engage pas, si ce président ne pense à rien, ne croit en rien, et au final ne fait rien. Ni rêve, ni propositions, ni décisions.
Augmenter les impôts dans des proportions démentielles pour payer quoi, la folie dépensière. Et pas simplement les impôts des riches, non les impôts de tout le monde. Les impôts des classes moyennes. Les impôts des ouvriers. Les impôts des salariés. Avec les socialistes, c’est l’argent qu’ils n’ont pas qu’ils dépensent et c’est les Français qui règlent l’addition.
C’est toujours pareil avec les socialistes, ils font des promesses à tout le monde. Les lendemains vont chanter… et puis quand ils ont fini de distribuer ce qu’ils n’ont pas, quand la faillite se profile, quand la confiance s’effondre, ils se rallient en catastrophe à l’austérité. Dans les années 1980 il a fallu deux ans pour que la situation devienne intenable. Aujourd’hui, il faudrait deux jours. Deux jours d’illusion pour des années de souffrance. Deux jours qui chantent pour des années de sacrifices. Deux jours de mensonges et des années pour régler la facture. Voilà le projet socialiste.”
Do I need to translate ?
This post has been edited by gemeaux333: 19 January 2019 - 06:50 PM
#37 Posted 19 January 2019 - 06:55 PM
But enough of that or this thread will get thrown in the outhouse too.
This post has been edited by Mark: 19 January 2019 - 06:56 PM
#38 Posted 19 January 2019 - 06:56 PM
https://en.wikipedia...me_Ghostbusters
#40 Posted 20 January 2019 - 02:38 AM
Merlijn, on 19 January 2019 - 01:14 PM, said:
Why change a winning strategy?
#41 Posted 20 January 2019 - 08:45 AM
#42 Posted 20 January 2019 - 08:49 AM
“This is the subsequent chapter within the authentic franchise,” he stated. “I’ve a lot respect for what Paul created with these sensible actresses, and would like to see extra tales from them. However, this new film will comply with the trajectory of the unique movie.”
MusicallyInspired, on 20 January 2019 - 08:45 AM, said:
“So insulting,” she started in a tweet. “Like fuck us. We dint rely. It’s like one thing trump would do. (Trump voice)”Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, higher with males, can be big. Those girls ain’t ghostbusteeeeers” ugh so annoying. Such a dick transfer. And I don’t give fuck I’m saying one thing!!”
so classy.
This post has been edited by Forge: 20 January 2019 - 08:57 AM
#43 Posted 21 January 2019 - 09:07 AM
X-Vector, on 20 January 2019 - 02:38 AM, said:
The weird thing.. most of those reboots/sequels aren't even that succesful.
The 2016 Ghostbusters tanked, Robocop, Terminator Genesys and Total recall didn't do so well either. The new Predator film also fopped (and rightfully so). Even Star Wars managed to produce a flop.
The positive thing about that.. maybe studio's will learn that nostalgia alone isn't enough and there needs to be a good story first. Maybe.
EDIT: to counterbalance my negativity I'll say there are a few notable exceptions. The recent Into the spider verse was pretty damn good, for example.
And that was also made by Sony. Who knew?
This post has been edited by Merlijn: 21 January 2019 - 09:09 AM
#44 Posted 21 January 2019 - 10:25 AM
#45 Posted 21 January 2019 - 10:35 AM
Merlijn, on 21 January 2019 - 09:07 AM, said:
some would do better, if they weren't trying to re-write history
#46 Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:21 PM
All that matters is if a film makes money in China.
‘Terminator Genisys’ Smashes Records at Chinese Box Office
China Box Office: 'RoboCop' Rides 3D Wave to Top of Chinese Charts
#47 Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:39 PM
There are several sequels that happens several decades later and succeed :
-Tron Legacy
-Mad Max Fury Road
-Jumanji Return to the Jungle
There are a few more, but their names doesn't come to my mind...
This post has been edited by gemeaux333: 21 January 2019 - 12:42 PM
#48 Posted 21 January 2019 - 01:25 PM
Mark, on 21 January 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:
No it's not. The Last Jedi is not better than nothing. I can't enjoy something when it sucks.
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 21 January 2019 - 01:25 PM
#49 Posted 21 January 2019 - 02:12 PM
This post has been edited by Mark: 21 January 2019 - 02:17 PM
#50 Posted 21 January 2019 - 02:22 PM
#51 Posted 21 January 2019 - 03:01 PM
Mark, on 21 January 2019 - 02:12 PM, said:
Last Jedi had bad cinematography, illogical writing, bad characters, uninspired designs, idiotic characters, humor ONLY adressed at kids below 12, bad pacing, a horrible plot and most of all it rendered everything in the Star Wars canon useless ... so in this case: "nothing" is much better than Episode XIII.
I would even go as far and say that "nothing" would have been much better than "Solo", because people with a bit of imagination had far mor instersting and exciting version of Han Solos past in their minds than the boring, uninspired crap that got delivered. One has to forget about the movie and revert it back to nothing to erase that crap out of your mind when watching the other movies with Han Solo in it. The same with Last Jedi and the other movies ... nothing would work, if you know that Episode XIII exists: neither the plot or suspense or the relief at the end of the other movies, nor the laws in the Star Wars universe as a whole.
Episode VII could have worked in a proper context (i.e. if XIII had delivered that), but the opposite was true in the end. I prefer nothing then.
This post has been edited by fuegerstef: 21 January 2019 - 03:09 PM
#53 Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:08 PM
#54 Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:12 PM
I'm not oblivious to some of their shortcomings but they don't affect me nearly as much as some of you guys. For instance, whichever movie it was, why didn't Laura Dern's character use a droid to pilot the ship on a suicide mission. Absolutely foolish writing. But I say meh, the movie was still good.
This post has been edited by Mark: 21 January 2019 - 04:17 PM
#55 Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:14 PM
#56 Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:19 PM
I guess I have more of the ability to mindlessly enjoy a movie without overanalysing it.
This post has been edited by Mark: 21 January 2019 - 04:21 PM
#57 Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:33 PM
#58 Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:51 PM
And thats the point I'm trying to make. How I feel I'm lucky to be able to enjoy a film while others get so upset about the details.
#59 Posted 21 January 2019 - 05:11 PM
Mark, on 21 January 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:
Sounds to me like the point you're trying to make is that nobody should dislike a film that completely derails already set characters, history, and story line
(on top of other shitty aspects or forced agenda)
Mark, on 21 January 2019 - 02:12 PM, said:
you set expectations so high
you can't enjoy a movie
nitpick it apart
don't work myself into a frenzy
or have a fanboyish devotion to every detail
Some people enjoy continuity in their sagas.
Kind of one of the reasons Ghostbusters 2016 flopped.
(among other things)
This post has been edited by Forge: 21 January 2019 - 05:21 PM