This is not encouraging to me
https://games.yahoo.com/news/set-photos-boston-set-ghostbusters-223500961.html
(https://s2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/djnNa3BK8iVN61CAsghhqQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTtzbT0x/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/comicvine.cbs.com/6d351ff644304d357c448f64409fd4d8)
I don't like everything she does, but I like Melissa McCarthy. I thought she was a great choice.
I don't care about the gimmick of being "all girl".
My hope is that the writers made a good flick.
Quote from: MetalDog on June 18, 2015, 09:43:34 PM
I don't like everything she does, but I like Melissa McCarthy. I thought she was a great choice.
Agreed.
Quote from: besilarius on June 19, 2015, 06:37:33 AM
I don't care about the gimmick of being "all girl".
My hope is that the writers made a good flick.
Agreed.
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 19, 2015, 07:27:59 AM
Quote from: besilarius on June 19, 2015, 06:37:33 AM
I don't care about the gimmick of being "all girl".
My hope is that the writers made a good flick.
Agreed.
+1 I actually like the idea of all female leads. However, I'm sceptical that it's going to be a good film. The first one was an almost perfect movie and the 2nd was such a dud. And now with Harold Ramis gone, I wish they'd just leave it be.
Quote from: mirth on June 19, 2015, 07:39:09 AM
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 19, 2015, 07:27:59 AM
Quote from: besilarius on June 19, 2015, 06:37:33 AM
I don't care about the gimmick of being "all girl".
My hope is that the writers made a good flick.
Agreed.
+1 I actually like the idea of all female leads. However, I'm sceptical that it's going to be a good film. The first one was an almost perfect movie and the 2nd was such a dud. And now with Harold Ramis gone, I wish they'd just leave it be.
Think of it as an homage, rather than a remake or reboot. Paul Feig worked with McCarthy on The Heat, and I rather enjoyed that.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b.cdninstagram.com%2Fhphotos-xfp1%2Ft51.2885-15%2F10401711_1436940536558565_308560415_a.jpg&hash=39abe9f321d0b3d66bc85b4fc1cf82a8c3f5383c)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F37.media.tumblr.com%2F3b1f6af30bd02507a020feaaf477b7d9%2Ftumblr_mv5mkuO1Rb1r7czr3o10_250.gif&hash=7f8523838023bab6f3439b7f6da4a88dfe8d2f0c)
No good will come of this..... :(
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 19, 2015, 07:45:33 AM
Quote from: mirth on June 19, 2015, 07:39:09 AM
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 19, 2015, 07:27:59 AM
Quote from: besilarius on June 19, 2015, 06:37:33 AM
I don't care about the gimmick of being "all girl".
My hope is that the writers made a good flick.
Agreed.
+1 I actually like the idea of all female leads. However, I'm sceptical that it's going to be a good film. The first one was an almost perfect movie and the 2nd was such a dud. And now with Harold Ramis gone, I wish they'd just leave it be.
Think of it as an homage, rather than a remake or reboot. Paul Feig worked with McCarthy on The Heat, and I rather enjoyed that.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b.cdninstagram.com%2Fhphotos-xfp1%2Ft51.2885-15%2F10401711_1436940536558565_308560415_a.jpg&hash=39abe9f321d0b3d66bc85b4fc1cf82a8c3f5383c)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F37.media.tumblr.com%2F3b1f6af30bd02507a020feaaf477b7d9%2Ftumblr_mv5mkuO1Rb1r7czr3o10_250.gif&hash=7f8523838023bab6f3439b7f6da4a88dfe8d2f0c)
Lol. I like Paul Feig's work, but Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy are two of my least favorite actresses. So I'm going to have to pass :P
Quote from: Barthheart on June 19, 2015, 07:54:35 AM
No good will come of this..... :(
I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing
Crossing the streams would be the best possible outcome....
One of my favorites of all time...I hope this all does the original some justice. Can we count on this female cast?
You guys are all missing the point. The real make-or-break question is: 'Who will they get to play Slimer?'
Rosie O'Donnell.
And we have a winner!!
Kristen Wiig is in it, too, non? I like her. Bridesmaids was a good movie. And has anyone seen So This Is 40? McCarthy has a small part in that and the ad lib in the principals office is pretty good.
Quote from: MetalDog on June 19, 2015, 10:02:52 PM
And we have a winner!!
Kristen Wiig is in it, too, non? I like her. Bridesmaids was a good movie. And has anyone seen So This Is 40? McCarthy has a small part in that and the ad lib in the principals office is pretty good.
Bridesmaids was an awful, awful movie that cost me 2 hours of my life I'll never get back and $20 for the DVD because my wife loved it and saw it 3 times in the theatre.... :buck2:
I laughed my ass off! And Maya Rudolph is HAWT!
^Indeed. :D
This is normally where I'd place a nice picture of Maya Rudolph but so much p0rn came up when I did a search that even I am shocked.
Quote from: MetalDog on June 19, 2015, 10:02:52 PM
Bridesmaids was a good movie. And has anyone seen So This Is 40? McCarthy has a small part in that and the ad lib in the principals office is pretty good.
MD, you need to remove the hormone patch and watch some mindless manly violent movies, stat!
Watched the HBO James Brown biopic as well as Dead Poets Society this weekend. The Frankie Avalon story is on Showtime. I think it's called Jersey Boys. Wanna see that, too.
*sigh*
I'll admit, The Jersey Boys stage production is highly entertaining.
Yeah, the last half-dozen posts are all the reason I need against a Ghostbusters reboot ;)
The fact that I enjoy cinema that doesn't conform to what you boys consider 'manly' just goes to show how unmanly YOU are :P NOW! I'm taking my bat and ball and going home!!
Have fun watching Beaches for the umpteenth time.
You're the wind beneath my wings, MD.
Now I really am going to barf
Do you think with the all female cast, the word "bust" in Ghostbusters could be considered sexist? Perhaps Ghostbreakers or Ghoststoppers. Or if you want a more hip title, Ghost-Ho's, Ghost Bitch-Slappers or Dykes on Ghost Bikes. Could work.
Bustin makes me feel good!
Don't forget the inevitable porn title rip-offs, like Ghostnutbusters.
Fried Green Ghost Therapists Connecting With Their Feelings
Quote from: MetalDog on June 22, 2015, 08:36:30 PM
The fact that I enjoy cinema that doesn't conform to what you boys consider 'manly' just goes to show how unmanly YOU are :P NOW! I'm taking my bat and ball and going home!!
I enjoyed Bridesmaids (for a chick flick) too. McCarty stole the show. I liked The Heat too.
Alternate-Spiritual Search and Evacuation Specialists. Ooops. That spells A.S.S.E.S--- Disregard post. 8)
Quote from: Gusington on June 23, 2015, 07:49:15 AM
Fried Green Ghost Therapists Connecting With Their Feelings
Sisterhood of Starfury's Traveling Ghost Pants
All female cast for Ghostbusters?
I am disappoint.
While I think the switch in that newer The Thing remake worked out okay, doing it for Ghostbusters just doesn't seem right at all.
I also thought Bridesmaids had some funny bits, but I have serious doubts about the comedy fit in this one, not to mention the tossing of the original characters. >:(
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCR93A1i.jpg&hash=cc80c971f874482f8e40ce0ce16ee0318b59dad0)
My classic movie sensibilities are offended.
Just reading the cast of characters on IMDB. No Spengler, no Stanz, no Venkman. So it is not a remake. Writer credits include Paul Feig & Dan Ackroyd. Harold Ramis is also credited as a writer. Ackroyd is the Executive Producer. Methinks they've taken the script that Bill Murray rejected before Ramis died, changed the characters and did some re-writes.
Passing on this when it comes out. No interest in watching a 'rebooted because GRRRRRLLLL POWAR' movie.
Is that pic above for real? Or is it Photoshop wizardry?
Quote from: Gusington on June 23, 2015, 01:45:27 PM
Is that pic above for real? Or is it Photoshop wizardry?
Ummm.... man hands..... ::)
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 23, 2015, 12:51:28 PM
Passing on this when it comes out. No interest in watching a 'rebooted because GRRRRRLLLL POWAR' movie.
+1 I have zero desire to see this.
Apparently there's a second GB movie, with male leads, being developed
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/channing-tatum-hates-g-i-joe-says-122278047592.html (https://www.yahoo.com/movies/channing-tatum-hates-g-i-joe-says-122278047592.html)
Quote"That thing's gotten messy, I'll be honest," Tatum told Stern. "There's a lot of people doing a lot of things on Ghostbusters... Look, I would love to do it. I'm saying, there's a lot of people in the pool right now, in the Ghostbusters pool."
While the all-female Ghostbusters is currently shooting, Tatum said that his film is "nowhere near" production.
WTF?! >:(
Was looking at the pic on a tiny phone screen, man-hands not visible so much.
Still - I am offended.
So I watched 'Jersey Boys' tonight. It's the Frankie Valli story, not Frankie Avalon. And it has Christopher Walken in it. Eat it, mirth.
Quote from: MetalDog on June 24, 2015, 12:25:14 AM
So I watched 'Jersey Boys' tonight. It's the Frankie Valli story, not Frankie Avalon. And it has Christopher Walken in it. Eat it, mirth.
I haven't seen the movie yet. But if you liked it, you should see the stage production if you have a chance. I saw it in Vegas this past October. The coordination, costume changes and set changes blew my mind.
You pack of Francis' need to lighten up! :)
The studios are making a boatload of cash off of Wiig, McCarthy et al. Besides if you'd like to (or have to) go to a movie with a woman, would you rather sit through odious bullshit like Twilight or the Notebook; or a Ghostbusters-labelled supernatural comedy?
I'm actually looking forward to it! It might allow me to skip some future God-awful chick flick.
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 24, 2015, 08:10:34 AM
Besides if you'd like to (or have to) go to a movie with a woman, would you rather sit through odious bullshit like Twilight or the Notebook; or a Ghostbusters-labelled supernatural comedy?
The answer is none of the above. ALWAYS none of the above. I'd rather be in the doghouse than watch either/any of the above.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 24, 2015, 10:10:21 AM
Quote from: Centurion40 on June 24, 2015, 08:10:34 AM
Besides if you'd like to (or have to) go to a movie with a woman, would you rather sit through odious bullshit like Twilight or the Notebook; or a Ghostbusters-labelled supernatural comedy?
The answer is none of the above. ALWAYS none of the above. I'd rather be in the doghouse than watch either/any of the above.
O0
I don't care in the slightest whether the Ghostbusters are all male, all female, or mixed. (Or heck trans -- and I'm not someone who much approves of trans anyway. But it seems like it would be funny.)
I do care about whether the film is being marketed as THEY'RE GIRLS NOW, or worse an implication that it'll be better now that they're girls. Because I don't care about the team gender; and because I worry that this will become a crutch or substitute for good writing (and/or good improv on scenes).
I'm also somewhat worried that the talent won't be up to the task, but I'm very much willing to be wrong. Ghostbusters 1 could have been dreadful (see the sequel for evidence), but sequels by the same team or by different people don't have to be dreadful (see the animated Real Ghostbuster series, and the 3PS Ghostbuster game which is effectively the real 3rd movie.)
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 24, 2015, 08:00:52 AM
Quote from: MetalDog on June 24, 2015, 12:25:14 AM
So I watched 'Jersey Boys' tonight. It's the Frankie Valli story, not Frankie Avalon. And it has Christopher Walken in it. Eat it, mirth.
I haven't seen the movie yet. But if you liked it, you should see the stage production if you have a chance. I saw it in Vegas this past October. The coordination, costume changes and set changes blew my mind.
The first half of the movie was terrible. until about the time Bob Gaudio joins. Then, it takes off. And Walken didn't have a huge part, but an integral one.
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/ghostbusters-reboot-ecto-1-car-paul-feig-123534638657.html
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJW6vnDWcAATGo5.jpg)
Considering the lukewarm reception so far (except from people who think the film will be inherently better somehow for gender-flipping the characters -- which I don't care about but which feels increasingly like a mere cynical ploy), the producers need to be trotting out more promotional material of this sort on a dang regular basis. Because at this point I'm only there for the car and the proton packs etc.
Reminds me, I can watch and play the real Ghostbusters 3 film any time I want, with all the original cast, and in fact still need to finish that game....
Quote from: JasonPratt on July 08, 2015, 09:44:46 PM
Reminds me, I can watch and play the real Ghostbusters 3 film any time I want, with all the original cast, and in fact still need to finish that game....
I was just thinking the same thing.
Well, here they are
(https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/n2dDUsFY0tfUKrgplWWTR49ASpU=/0x0:624x416/600x400/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/46707626/ghostbusters_uniform.0.0.jpg)
Quote from: mirth on July 10, 2015, 09:09:26 AM
Well, here they are
(https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/n2dDUsFY0tfUKrgplWWTR49ASpU=/0x0:624x416/600x400/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/46707626/ghostbusters_uniform.0.0.jpg)
Pass.
Kirsten Wiig is hot. And I just found she is a vegetarian in RL. :smitten:
I could even forgive her for being a Giants fan
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informedmeateater.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2Fkristen-wiig-4.jpg&hash=362933f3ba141623b91a04efaa2cbab696f4bc21)
I see it Mirth, I do. I'm just not sure why she is posing next to a burger with a bite out of it, unless that's supposed to be some kind of 'forbidden fruit' tease.
You're focusing on the burger? Really? That could be a veggie burger, a Whopper, a Bacon Double Cheeseburger...who gives a fuck? I'd eat any of them off that tummy.
Quote from: mirth on July 10, 2015, 09:21:11 AM
I could even forgive her for being a Giants fan
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informedmeateater.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2Fkristen-wiig-4.jpg&hash=362933f3ba141623b91a04efaa2cbab696f4bc21)
Pipe down, Brady lover. If she says the Giants rock, you say, "How hard?"
I wouldn't be thinking about Tom Brady
I don't care if any of them are cute (not that that will hurt), I care if they're funny. That photo doesn't look as inherently funny as any photo of the original crew.
Which is a stupid thing for me to prejudge a movie on. But this is a character-and-kit film, and the kit hasn't been marketed much, and the 'character' side... I dunno. Yet.
On the other hand, the whole theoretical point to promo photos is to invite prejudging the movie, hopefully with a positive result. So... with me, so far, they're failing. I have yet to read or hear anyone anywhere, even among the people who think being girls this time will automatically mean a better movie somehow, who are excited about the film (being excited because they're women is a different thing) from promo photos of the cast.
I wouldn't either, but, I have to assume that your reason for being disagreeable about the Giants is your devotion to the Puh-try-uts. Hence, the Tom Brady reference. Now, go ask Ms. Wiig if eating fish tacos is acceptable vegetarian practice.
Stop about the effing movie. The important thing is that Kristen Wiig is a hot vegetarian. Big Picture!
She'd be hawter as a Jets fan.
Quote from: MetalDog on July 10, 2015, 07:49:32 PM
I wouldn't either, but, I have to assume that your reason for being disagreeable about the Giants is your devotion to the Puh-try-uts. Hence, the Tom Brady reference. Now, go ask Ms. Wiig if eating fish tacos is acceptable vegetarian practice.
My hatred for the New York Football Giants pre-dates the Brady Patriots by about 20 years. However, I will gladly discuss Fish Tacos with Kristen Wiig.
Quote from: Gusington on July 10, 2015, 07:53:17 PM
She'd be hawter as a Jets fan.
She likes the Dirty Sanchez?
Mad that Parcells didn't bring a Super Bowl to New England? Or you were a Bills fan before switching allegiance? ;)
Quote from: mirth on July 10, 2015, 07:57:52 PM
Quote from: Gusington on July 10, 2015, 07:53:17 PM
She'd be hawter as a Jets fan.
She likes the Dirty Sanchez?
NOone is hotter as a Jets fan. It's why they are Jets fans.
Quote from: MetalDog on July 10, 2015, 07:58:43 PM
Mad that Parcells didn't bring a Super Bowl to New England? Or you were a Bills fan before switching allegiance? ;)
Parcells was never going to bring a Super Bowl to NE. And I laughed at the Bills as they choked repeatedly.
My hatred of the Giants goes back to Montana and the 49ers.
Quote from: MetalDog on July 10, 2015, 07:59:21 PM
Quote from: mirth on July 10, 2015, 07:57:52 PM
Quote from: Gusington on July 10, 2015, 07:53:17 PM
She'd be hawter as a Jets fan.
She likes the Dirty Sanchez?
NOone is hotter as a Jets fan. It's why they are Jets fans.
You just like a good butt fumble.
If she liked the Dirty Sanchez that would make her hawter and awesomer.
Quote from: mirth on July 10, 2015, 08:02:08 PM
Quote from: MetalDog on July 10, 2015, 07:58:43 PM
Mad that Parcells didn't bring a Super Bowl to New England? Or you were a Bills fan before switching allegiance? ;)
Parcells was never going to bring a Super Bowl to NE. And I laughed at the Bills as they choked repeatedly.
My hatred of the Giants goes back to Montana and the 49ers.
I'm with you on the hate for Montana and the Niners, but, I don't get how that relates to the Giants.
I didn't hate Montana and the 9ers. I hated the fucking Giants in more than one NFC title game.
My God, I still can't believe the Bills choked away that Super Bowl.
So, what did Kristen say about the tacos?
Quote from: mirth on July 10, 2015, 08:13:52 PM
My God, I still can't believe the Bills Oilers choked away that Super Bowl AFC title game.
Quote from: Gusington on July 10, 2015, 07:53:17 PM
She'd be hawter as a Jets fan.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frccblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FSaidNoOneEver.jpg&hash=0276eaa5397348a2baff1ebe6a0baae75c00323f)
Is it 4 brand new characters?
Because they've got a black dude and have clearly gone for a Spengler look with the big hair an glasses on the other one
I've been confused about that, too. I'm sure I've heard definitively one way or another, but it isn't a good sign that this far into production I can't remember what the situation is supposed to be.
I suppose we can hope that they're new characters the way the Oilers found a home who appreciates them and became THE TENNESSEE TITANS! ;D O0 :coolsmiley:
(Back when that happened, I remembered people being snifty about them not taking a city name, e.g. Nashville, like most pro teams. But I understood, and approved. Son, this is Tennessee.)
(Then I promptly ignored them. But they've done well by the name.)
Quote from: mirth on July 10, 2015, 08:13:52 PM
My God, I still can't believe the Bills choked away that Super Bowl.
A-'fing-men.
I think I'll pull for the Ghosts this time. The N.Y. Ghosts.
Quote from: Sir Slash on July 13, 2015, 01:46:56 PM
I think I'll pull for the Ghosts this time. The N.Y. Ghosts.
You know that's not going to happen. The 'good
guyswomen' are gonna win. And they'll all have a nice emotional cry over it while watching Beaches or something and not making us sandwiches.
;D
I see a movie that is going to top a billion at the box office, but be f&cking horrible. Thanks, Hollywood.
Go Slimer!!
Probably end up as Slimeretta.
You gents have no faith in what these women can bring to the franchise. Their predecessors notwithstanding, this could be a really good movie.
If Kristen Wiig can like fish tacos, I can like this movie.
Yeah......some of the words in that sentence are in the wrong order........
It's been a long day.
Quote from: MetalDog on July 13, 2015, 09:06:32 PM
You gents have no faith in what these women can bring to the franchise. Their predecessors notwithstanding, this good be a really good movie.
You have more faith than I, Grasshoppa.
Flow like the wind through the reeds.
O0
I thought I was watching the View for a second there. :2funny: Punishment for our Sins?
That looks really, really, really f*cking stupid.
Kristen Wiig is still hot.
Her hotness can't make up for the uber-estrogen-GRRRLLL POWAR fest that this movie is going to be.
But...yeah. Yeah, she is.
Oh I don't care about the movie, doubt I'll ever see it. It will not, however, diminish my love of Kristen Wiig.
Your logic is infallible in this case.
Looks like the sequel to Pixels no one asked for.
Did anyone ask for the first Pixels?
I thought I heard Bison mumbling something about it while he was pondering over which console to buy.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on March 03, 2016, 05:59:43 PM
I thought I heard Bison mumbling something about it while he was pondering over which console to buy.
:2funny:
Quote from: mirth on March 03, 2016, 05:45:21 PM
Did anyone ask for the first Pixels?
Good point.
Did anyone ask for a remake of the original Ghostbusters minus the atmosphere, intelligent humor and talent?
You know you're in bad shape when the trailer opens with a puke joke.
I don't even really care about the female cast, so that's not my problem with it. I mean, imagine this trailer with some of the male actors that typically appear in this kind of fare. You put Adam Sandler and actors of his "caliber" in there and it'd have an even worse response.
I harbor no illusions that the Ghostbusters reboot willl be at all good. I suspect it will make Ghostbusters II look much better in hindsight.
Some of that looked good enough. But looking good wasn't (much) of a problem for GB2.
THE POWAH OF PAIN COMPELS ME... to just finish playing the semi-official GB3 game instead, and be happy with that. :smitten:
I hardly need to add my sexy voice to the chorus, but yeah, that looks painful. It just screams film by committee.
Sadly, my daughter just recently watched Ghostbusters for the first time (and loved it, obviously) so as soon as she catches wind of this she'll want to see it. :(
http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/08/the-new-ghostbusters-and-the-multiverse-at-the-multiplex/
Quote
Sony has created a new sub-company called Ghost Corps for the purpose of producing Ghostbusters films, with as many as four potentially being in production. And it won't just be reboots and sequels. It will be a "legitimate shared universe" that will be "the catch-all umbrella for a world of supernatural FX [special-effects] comedies." There is talk about producing films from this "universe" at a rate of one per year.
:uglystupid2:
Great :(
I don't know. Watching Melissa McCarthy getting the literal snot slapped out of her was pretty funny.
Quote from: mirth on March 08, 2016, 01:12:09 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/08/the-new-ghostbusters-and-the-multiverse-at-the-multiplex/
Quote
Sony has created a new sub-company called Ghost Corps for the purpose of producing Ghostbusters films, with as many as four potentially being in production. And it won't just be reboots and sequels. It will be a "legitimate shared universe" that will be "the catch-all umbrella for a world of supernatural FX [special-effects] comedies." There is talk about producing films from this "universe" at a rate of one per year.
:uglystupid2:
They're playing the odds. One of them will eventually be half decent.
When they said that someone was controlling the ghosts, I thought of Scooby-doo 2.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0331632/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_83
I'd rather see a Frighteners 2 TBH.
I can't see anything wrong with what Angry Joe said...he's pretty much mirroring my thoughts.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on March 10, 2016, 07:40:57 AM
I can't see anything wrong with what Angry Joe said...he's pretty much mirroring my thoughts.
Yep.
The most relevant point being that the original movies were generally serious, with subtle humor. This new abomination just looks like a bunch of ridiculous Slapstick Comedy for it's own sake. ::) Completely different style. :knuppel2:
I think I have had more fun watching his review video than I will watching the actual release.
Quote from: Gusington on March 13, 2016, 04:42:43 PM
I think I have had more fun watching his review video than I will watching the actual release.
+1
I don't know much about Angry Joe but after that trailer review he has a new fan in me. He put into words what I am not clever enough to about the new Ghostbusters trailer. Well done!
As an aside I am now definitely going to wait for this to be released On Demand. I toyed with the idea of seeing it in a theater but now...no way.
How do you not know Angry Joe? His reviews are epic!
I know of him, never watched anything by him.
I forgive you.
I could probably make a career out of watching him now. Or better yet start my own video blog review page, replete with TEEHEEs.
I could do with a good 'TEEHEE' right now :-(
How about a hug? R&P has made my mood foul and stolen my TEEHEE.
Yeah, a hug may do he trick, if you're sure there aint any TEEHEE's left.
Here's two.
My word! I feel better already :-)
Never fails.
Gonna take more than TeeHee or Gus hug to make this movie good
I can give it my best shot but I fear you're correct.
I'd prefer if you keep your shots to yourself.
That's not what she said.
Star has different tastes.
i see murray is in the new jungle book film - havent seen the cast list but ill bet baloo
That'd be awesome!
Bill Murray will be the voice of Baloo:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3040964/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_2
And I haven't been able to see your avatar for the last two days, mirth.
Damn. I hate it when that happens.
Quote from: MetalDog on March 13, 2016, 05:58:31 PM
Bill Murray will be the voice of Baloo:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3040964/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_2
And I haven't been able to see your avatar for the last two days, mirth.
I still haven't looked at the list and saw on the poster Christopher walken - I'll guess the snake
Walken is King Louie, the orangutan, Idris Elba is Shere Khan, the tiger. Scarlett Johansson, Lupita Nyong'o, and Ben Kingsley are some of the others. Comes out 15 April.
well that took all the fun out of guessing ;D
^seriously
Hadn't realized it was a guessing game. Just thought it was laziness in not clicking the link. My apologies.
I saw the trailer and Johansson is the snake. A big, sexy-sounding snake.
Mr Stay Puft reacts to the Ghostbusters trailer:
I'll be curious how they play Kaa in this version. In the original books Kaa is a valued ally, on par with Bagheera and Baloo (and the wolves). At the end when Mowgli returns to humanity, it's Kaa, Bag, and Bal, who say the final farewells, each contributing to a touching song. Kaa is who saves Mowgli from the ape army, too; and who provides a key role in destroying a pack of invading wild dogs.
The trailer's soundbites suggest deadly seduction more than true aid, more in line with the animated Disney movie -- but with Scarlett replacing the spine-cringing homoerotic overtones from the Disney film! :o :buck2: I'm not convinced this isn't misdirection, though.
There was a truly epic anime series of the Jungle Book, that I've only seen a few eps of, which can only be found on Youtube now, or maybe DailyMotion, the English version being made for Australian audiences I think. Adaptation was more modern in its setting (with Mowgli's parents being, essentially, white bush scholars flying in on a plane and dying horribly from something or other, I forget what), and the animation itself wasn't that great, but still every time I see this footage I remember I intended to find it again and watch the whole thing some day.
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 14, 2016, 02:51:12 PM
I'll be curious how they play Kaa in this version. In the original books Kaa is a valued ally, on par with Bagheera and Baloo (and the wolves). At the end when Mowgli returns to humanity, it's Kaa, Bag, and Bal, who say the final farewells, each contributing to a touching song. Kaa is who saves Mowgli from the ape army, too; and who provides a key role in destroying a pack of invading wild dogs.
The trailer's soundbites suggest deadly seduction more than true aid, more in line with the animated Disney movie -- but with Scarlett replacing the spine-cringing homoerotic overtones from the Disney film! :o :buck2: I'm not convinced this isn't misdirection, though.
??? Ghostbuster's had a book?
Pumpkin Escobar:
"Man... I don't know what the FUCK you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man. You reached out, and you touch a brother's heart."
We segued into talking about the new Jungle Book trailer, thanks to Geek.
There's an incidental but real connection to the Ghostbusters back up there somewhere if you look for it. ;)
10 pages to derail is a record here
Bewbs.
Is that the Breast you can do?
Beats losing your porn stash. That can cause loss of mammary.
(https://i.imgflip.com/10zprq.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/10zprq)via Imgflip Meme Maker (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
He looks like he could use some Boob.
Before he dies.
again
Sean Bean and Michael Biehn should team up for the straight to video sequel of "Edge of Tomorrow". "EoT2: All You Need Is Die".
To all you haters, if it's good enough for Bill, it should be good enough for you:
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/paul-feig-on-why-bill-murray-joined-his-222929446.html
He also did two Garfield movies. He can be bought.
Are the Garfields his worst movies ever? If you had to choose the absolute worst Murray film, would it automatically be Ghostbusters3 or something else?
Spacejam
I keep forgetting how extensive a role he had in that film.
I however will nominate "Dumb and Dumber To".
Not that there's any shortage. ;)
Is Dumb and Dumber To the same as Dumb and Dumberer?
Who's on first?
I don't know.... Third Base.
Quote from: Gusington on March 25, 2016, 04:57:56 PM
Is Dumb and Dumber To the same as Dumb and Dumberer?
No. I don't know if it's a sequel or a remake; and I don't care. But I do know it's a separate film.
That neuron in my head dedicated to knowing this, was apparently cursed by a gypsie neuron at birth.
Dumb and Dumberer To is indeed a sequel.
I enjoyed the first movie, but have no desire to ever see it again. I equally have no desire to ever see this sequel.
This is the Ghostbusters I will be going to see this summer
http://www.avclub.com/article/ghostbusters-men-it-coming-back-theaters-236073
For me that's the real Ghostbusters and I don't care that it's not PC to say so.
I actually quite liked Dumb and Dumber 2. I did not like Dumb and Dumberer.
But Dumb and Dumber is the only one and I have to say the funniest movie I have ever seen. I must've watched it about 20 times or more. It's my go to movie when I want a laugh
This is not looking any better. Kristen Wiig, however, is still hot.
^ I could only stomach a minute of that. After the "RACE THANG" line I was pretty much done. Talk about pandering and just generally f*cking awful.
I'm certain I wouldn't watch it even if it were free.
Not even Thor can save that movie.
God - that really does look awful in so many ways. There's no band wagon being jumped on here...it's just real REAL base "humour"
And yeah - what is it about Kristen Wiig that is soooooo hot? It's not like she's been foisted on us by playing particularly sexy roles!
Well, the good thing is that it seems most of the Internet really, really hates this movie. Sony's official YouTube channel posted Trailer 2 a couple of months ago. It's received over 32 million views, but has almost 810,000 dislikes right now (with only 239,000 likes). The comments are hilarious and universally panning this crap, thank goodness.
The movie's budget is 154 million, if I'm reading right. I'm hoping they don't come close to breaking even on this...PC-ness really needs another slap to the face, as does Hollywood for even remotely thinking this would be a good idea.
In reality, though, I'm betting this is going to fall into the category of movies that suck but end up more than making up their budget at the box office. :(
Hahahaha that looks shit.
Y'all can fight over that Wiig woman, I'll take Melissa McCarthy. :)
154M 'Murican dollars??? Lordy...
I don't give a single hoot that they're women.
I care that the movie sounds and (for the humans) looks shrill and unfunny. And I care that I'm apparently supposed to give a hoot that they're women.
(Although to be fair, I get that more from media about the movie, than from the movie's own direct marketing.)
It's amazing that this is pandering to a certain clique and yet the usual black woman and fat woman stereotypes are right in your face in this :uglystupid2:
Quote from: Huw the Poo on May 19, 2016, 12:38:39 PM
Hahahaha that looks shit.
Y'all can fight over that Wiig woman, I'll take Melissa McCarthy. :)
No no, she would be taking
you.
:))
Quote from: Staggerwing on May 19, 2016, 07:23:22 PM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on May 19, 2016, 12:38:39 PM
Y'all can fight over that Wiig woman, I'll take Melissa McCarthy. :)
No no, she would be taking you.
:))
In Capitalist America, large woman take YOU to dinner and attempted date rape!
She's more than welcome. :smitten:
Big women are better. Or at least... more grateful.
Don't forget the bag of flour on that date :P
They make the rockin' world go round.
Quote from: Gusington on May 20, 2016, 04:06:02 PM
They make the rockin' world go round.
Bags of flour?
Yes and fat bottomed girls.
Just one bag of flour Mirth. It involves using flour to determine where potential 'wet' areas are in difficult to spot..... terrain. I prefer cornmeal myself. It works just as well and adds a little friction. Plus it's glutton free. ::)
Did someone say gluten free?
I love gluten.
Quote from: Gusington on May 21, 2016, 04:52:58 PM
I love gluten.
It makes an excellent steak
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativefoodsinc.com%2FDocs%2FGlutenSteak1.jpg&hash=2c9c8b4ceeedd37ad6ded94449d0dd4198dbd238)
I'll take 10.
Those gluten steaks have only 4 CARDS EACH!
There's no way you can get a full, straight flush with that.
If you have to keep it frozen, how can you eat it?
like an ice-cream sandwich?
Steak flavored ice cream sandwich?
Wrapped in Bacon. :smitten:
The amount of hate on YouTube for each of the trailers is just effin' wonderful. :smitten:
Yes and we're all misogynist pricks for not loving it.
So, will this be worse than the latest Fantastic Four reboot, or will we not see something that bad again.
This looks like it's going to be pretty bad, but I'm not sure it will be FF bad. Problem is everyone is going to compare it to the original Ghostbusters and by that measure it will look awful.
To be fair, this version of the film has been in development hell for quite a long time. There was a video on YouTube that gave an interesting look at how many times they tried to develop it and the infighting that resulted. It makes more sense to me now WHY they did what they did (and I wish I could find the video, but I can't, sorry).
But. That does not mean it will be a good movie. It looks bloody awful from what the trailers are trying to do. The trailers themSELVES are rather misogynistic, not to mention reeking of double-standard racism.
^HAHAHA first time I've seen anyone mention that but you're right about the misogyny...
This movie looks awful by any measure.
Quote from: bbmike on June 09, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
This movie looks awful by any measure.
It does, which is why the cries of misogyny piss me off so much. It just looks shit, in every conceivable way. There's nothing wrong in calling shit shit.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on June 10, 2016, 12:31:12 AM
Quote from: bbmike on June 09, 2016, 07:55:57 PM
This movie looks awful by any measure.
It does, which is why the cries of misogyny piss me off so much. It just looks shit, in every conceivable way. There's nothing wrong in calling shit shit.
Apparently there is if it's pushing a PC agenda :2funny:
Omfg...make a good movie. I don't give a fuck about the gender of the cast if it is actually good. Nothing I've seen in the trailers makes me want to see this film
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/movies/whos-afraid-of-female-ghostbusters.html
I still love Kristen Wiig. And I hope this movie is better than I expect it to be.
Doesn't have a Ghost of a chance. Did we do that one already?
Quote from: Sir Slash on June 21, 2016, 10:34:09 PM
Doesn't have a Ghost of a chance. Did we do that one already?
Not sure, but you get an extra point for your Avatar sig.
I'd never heard of Leslie Jones before, but after seeing her in this trailer, I see her in a lot of places now. She annoys the crap out of me, and I don't think that's HER fault necessarily - I think it's the ghettoized caricature she's portraying in this reboot. I've met a lot of actors here locally that are absolute a-holes but are a pleasure to work with when you're rehearsing/acting.
But Leslie's caricature is just one of many sad notes in this overall symphony of depression and agony called 'Ghostbusters (2016).'
How about a new theme? Classic Movie Re-Make Busters. Who you gonna call? :coolsmiley:
Not sure if this was posted or not. This is a rather articulate and engaging bit about why the reboot is going to suck. It's 10 months old, this post, but it still pretty well wraps up the sting of Feig and his utter lack of sense.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/3jyciu/why_the_remake_of_ghostbusters_will_suck/
I happen to completely agree with the OP, there. Wig is pretty good, McCarthy is indeed a cheap female rip off of Chris Farley, and the other two are just plain bad actors. And Sony can suck a hog if they're really redoing Jumanji, too.
I'm thinking of putting together a 'reimagining' - Jewmanji.
Where all the male characters are gender swapped to be Jewish women? Jewomanji.
...
........
...okay, wait. I might pay to see that.
I would definitely pay to see that.
Rotten tomatoes consencus is pretty ok
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/
Its not going to measure up to the original buts it reads like it's not going to be the dreck that everyone was forecasting for it as well.
Con
I'm sure it will be okay. It's too bad they had to brand it Ghostbusters. That's almost impossible to live up to. And honestly it's unnecessary. Recipe for failure.
I still doubt it will be okay.
It will probably be better than Star Trek V.
And let's be honest, Ghostbusters 2 wasn't a gem.
I bet Ghostbusters 2 > new Ghostbusters. But neither better than Star Trek V. ^-^
Wow. You have an high estimation of ST V.
Quote from: Con on July 10, 2016, 04:45:54 PM
Rotten tomatoes consencus is pretty ok
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/
Its not going to measure up to the original buts it reads like it's not going to be the dreck that everyone was forecasting for it as well.
Con
Rottentomatoes...
Where the critical acclaim regularly features children's animated movies near the top. ::)
Gives an idea of where the reviewers' tastes lean. Not surprising, in the case of
Ghostbusters, such a sophisticated audience gives it a decent rating what with all the generic slapstick humor involved. Which
does seem to be made for tweenies and probably foreign crowds.
That was almost a Pratt-like response ;D
I was thinking more of questioning whether the RT score was salted by media outlets who would feel nervous criticizing the merits of this bold move in gender equality or something like that.
Too short. Please expound.
Sorry this is as expounded as I get.
Quote from: mirth on July 10, 2016, 08:04:57 PM
Too short. Please expound.
THE POWAH OF PAIN
COMPELS ME! -- not to. :buck2:
I hear this movie's so bad the ghosts are threatening a lawsuit to have their parts removed from the film. The ghost of Johnny Cochran is representing them. In a statement he said, "If this movie's shit, then we have to get". I like that better than, "Booooooo"!
This could have been posted before, but, I thought this thread might could use some REAL Ghostbusters:
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/15-things-you-never-knew-about-the-original-174803908.html
Quote from: MetalDog on July 12, 2016, 09:20:00 PM
This could have been posted before, but, I thought this thread might could use some REAL Ghostbusters:
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/15-things-you-never-knew-about-the-original-174803908.html
I knew pretty much all of that. Sorry it coalesced into one of the greatest movies of all time.
And I'm not sorry at all.
We all need to watch this
I've heard some preliminary reports that the movie isn't mind blowing, but it's not bad. I heard also that Leslie Jones is not nearly as bad as the trailers make her out to be (stereotype, loud, etc.).
But after a quick Google search, I found a lot of bad reviews, too.
IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/) is rating it 3.8 out of 10. I thought that could be due to people posting negative comments about it before it was even released, but going through the reviews shows a lot of people saw it and still hate it.
Rotten Tomatoes (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/) rates it a lot higher - 77%. 75 positive reviews versus 23 negative reviews.
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/movies/ghostbusters-review-melissa-mccarthy-kristen-wiig.html?_r=0) of course takes a totally supportive view of it (and completely misses the point as to why people whom haven't seen it, hate it in the first place - no, it's NOT misogyny, it's a bad script, an obvious cash grab, ignoring the original two films but paying a confusing lip service in the trailers to them, and Feig, whom is bad at his job). The NYT's title alone is infuriating. However, the comments are pretty much tearing the review apart:
QuoteIs it possible to find a positive review of this movie that doesn't belabor the fact that it stars four women? I mean, all the reviews that say "meh" or "it was bad" are pretty much treating the cast like any other cast of mixed genders and races, but the positive reviews are bold enough to even title their reviews with "deal with it!" or "girl power!" as if the gender of the four primary actors is the only thing that matters. Who's the sexist one here? The reviewer who can't seem to stop talking about girl power and how haters must be misogynists, or the fan who says "I just didn't want a reboot of a movie I loved."?
This review is an embarrassment. The agenda is clear. I'd be willing to bet Amy Pascal's money is in the reviewer's bank account, too.
The Chicago Sun-Times (http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/) calls it a "horrifying mess."
I think in general, this movie is a completely mixed bag. Some will likely find goodness in it, while most will not. There will still be a dividing line between those that love this movie and sing its praises because it is four women, and others that say it's terrible - not because of the gender role reversals, but because it's yet another Hollywood lazy-as-shite reboot with a mediocre director. (Feig was decent enough in directing U.S. Office episodes, but his movies are decidedly average - Spy was a pretty great idea but I really didn't like Melissa McCarthy at all in it).
Sources like the NYT are not going to help things with their "girl power, deal with it, women are funny" title. Yes, there are some awesome female comedians and actors. Kristin Wiig is pretty much the only decent one out of this group while the others - well, I guess I'll have to see it myself to pass final judgement.
But there's no way in Hades I'm going to give a movie theater money to see this. I'm happy to wait.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 13, 2016, 07:25:01 AM
The Chicago Sun-Times (http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/) calls it a "horrifying mess."
QuoteBad acting.
Uninspired directing, editing, cinematography and music.
Cheesy special effects.
A forgettable villain.
A terrible script.
Pass.
If there's too many more reviews like that, I'll probably pass on it too.
The Fall Out Boy/Missy Elliot re-do of the Ghostbusters theme SUCKS. So much so that I'm not even going to post a link to it here.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 13, 2016, 07:40:06 AM
If there's too many more reviews like that, I'll probably pass on it too.
The Fall Out Boy/Missy Elliot re-do of the Ghostbusters theme SUCKS. So much so that I'm not even going to post a link to it here.
Yeah, I made the mistake of listening to part of it. It's really bad.
Could be worse. Could have starred Roseanne. ::)
Quote from: Sir Slash on July 13, 2016, 09:02:56 AM
Could be worse. Could have starred Roseanne. ::)
Or Rosie O'Donnell....where's that vomit emoticon?
I will never see this film 8)
Quote from: bbmike on July 13, 2016, 08:50:58 AM
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 13, 2016, 07:40:06 AM
If there's too many more reviews like that, I'll probably pass on it too.
The Fall Out Boy/Missy Elliot re-do of the Ghostbusters theme SUCKS. So much so that I'm not even going to post a link to it here.
Yeah, I made the mistake of listening to part of it. It's really bad.
Wow. That's total crap.
The Chinese have the good sense to keep this thing out
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/ghostbusters-denied-release-in-china-203600062.html
Quote from: mirth on July 13, 2016, 07:03:26 PM
The Chinese have the good sense to keep this thing out
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/ghostbusters-denied-release-in-china-203600062.html
Funny because that was probably a large chunk of their target audience.
I applaud Honest Trailer for acknowledging the original Ghostbusters show (that ran when I was a little boy). Which got a semi-ambitious but often painful cartoon remake from Filmation around the time the mostly-genius movie-inspired "Real Ghostbusters" cartoon was playing.
I will definitely be finishing my playthrough of the real Ghostbusters 3 3PS game, written and performed by the original crew (even Max Von Sydow as the voice of the Carpathian), following as a clear sequel to the movies. Sure it panders to the audience as much as any nostalgia-bait sequel might dunder-headedly do -- Stay-Puft is the first boss out of the gate, for crying out loud -- and it takes some of the actors time to start getting back in the mood of things. But you get to join all four Ghostbusters as the rookie 5th guy, in what amounts to a virtual reality fan-fiction movie.
So the family and I saw it in 3D IMAX tonight, and I enjoyed it. 40 Jr. didn't, he just griped about the Ghostbusters being girls (but he sure looked like he was into it during the film). There were a couple of 3D pay-offs and the big screen probably added a bit to my enjoyment. All of the original Ghostbusters had cameos, although Harold was a bust (literally). Bill got the most screen time out of the 4. There were even a couple of genuine chuckles and scares.
See it, don't go see it, whatever. It didn't suck and it is well placed for a sequel. It was a solid B+.
Quote from: Centurion40 on July 14, 2016, 09:46:06 PM
So the family and I saw it in 3D IMAX tonight, and I enjoyed it. 40 Jr. didn't, he just griped about the Ghostbusters being girls (but he sure looked like he was into it during the film). There were a couple of 3D pay-offs and the big screen probably added a bit to my enjoyment. All of the original Ghostbusters had cameos, although Harold was a bust (literally). Bill got the most screen time out of the 4. There were even a couple of genuine chuckles and scares.
See it, don't go see it, whatever. It didn't suck and it is well placed for a sequel. It was a solid B+.
Unless my kids ask, I'm not going to see it.
Honestly, I think it would be okay as it's own thing. The mistake was hanging "Ghostbusters" on it. Someone wanted a cash grab and they FUBARed it.
Without giving it away, I can see how the antagonist could have been originally written to be pitted against the original Ghostbusters. But Bill was dragging his feet, and then Harold died. So they re-wrote with an all-new team, a reboot. Peter Venkman and crew never existed in this Ghostbusters universe.
Dan Ackroyd is the Executive Producer and one of the writers, almond with Ivan Reitman.
Angry Joe is...well, see for yourself.
FYI the original just started on the Sundance Channel, as of 5pm est 😎
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 15, 2016, 12:47:32 PM
Angry Joe is...well, see for yourself.
Very angry. Understandably so.
Moviebob (Bob Chipman) thinks it's okay, not great not bad (http://www.geek.com/news/moviebob-reviews-ghostbusters-2016-1661593/), and continues to radically misunderstand why most of us were leery about it. No big surprise there.
No, Bob, most of us actually like women. :P The previews looked universally weak or worse.
Haven't seen it yet myself; somewhat heartend (....why does that not look like a word?...) by the very wide reception which, regardless of my suspicion about the merits of the reception from some quarters, is a whole lot better than universally panned by everyone. Played
Ghostbusters: the Game this weekend, got further on that (mostly Sunday), enjoyed it despite the tough boss fights, haven't finished it yet, suspect I'll end up liking it better than the new remake, but when I do see it I'll keep my mind open: I actually do like the property and want to be entertained by it. (And it isn't as though the game's production wasn't beset by varying levels of love or indifference.)
What's great about the toxic reviews from Angry Joe & Company that are mad about the quality of the film and the writing, crapping all over the legacy and being the worst kind of cash grab and an insult to what the original creators did...
...is that this is "an Ivan Reitman film written by Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis".
The first film was kind of accidentally great; and as with the cartoon sequel series showed, it had potential to be consistently great. But that doesn't mean the original creators were competent to do it again. GB2 proved that demonstrably. And we probably got the best possible polished original creator sequel to both movies with The Game already -- which while often good with flashes of occasional genius, didn't exactly set the world on fire with its awesomeness.
(Also, some of the complaints about the crass humor seem to be forgetting the awkwardly crass humor in the original, dialed down barely enough to rate PG, or PG-13 nowadays.)
That said, I kind of trust Joe's review (and its spoiler sequel) more than some of the other reviews. He and his crew are specific about problems, and I can see why those would be problems. But I think they lack perspective -- whatever this movie it, the original creators had a strong hand in it.
Welp, saw this movie this past weekend and I rate it, "eh..okay."
If you've seen the original(s) back in the day, you aren't getting anything really new - so the "wow," factor isn't really there. For my kids, who've not seen the older movies, this gives them them their own version of the theater-watched-ghostbusters experience, and that is okay too.
My opinion: acting was okay, effects were pretty good but they did chuck in a scene or two which made no flipping sense to me but it made the ladies look tough, I guess. If you still aren't sure, then wait for the Redbox release and not be out too much change.
Props for Kate McKinnon as her character was pretty funny all the way around.
Angry Joe said one thing that struck a chord with me - the original team of Ghostbusters were rank amateurs when it came to shooting their proton packs at ghosts. A large part of the comedy in the first part of the first movie was them tearing stuff up with wanton abandon. He said this "new" team are all pretty much sharpshooters each and every time. There's no suspense, no sense of danger, nothing. And that's something the original Ghostbusters flick had; it was certainly a comedy, but it had horror moments (albeit light, but still...).
If you can make it all the way through this tripe, you beat me
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/movies/so-thats-who-you-call-the-politics-of-the-new-ghostbusters.html
As soon as I saw "attacked by angry male fans," I was done. >:(
I've seen plenty of women bitching about this movie, too, but the NYT as usual conveniently ignores facts when it doesn't fit into their agenda.
Funny too how there's no Comments section. Hmmm...
The NYTimes is barely readable for me anymore. It's like the Don Lemon of online papers.
I really enjoyed the Times 20 years ago. I had a print subscription back then (not easy to do in Maine). It has become progressively less readable over the years. I wouldn't pay a nickel for it now.
Just like Don Lemon.
Don Lemon is an insult to lemons I say. He should change his name to, 'Suck-a-Lemon'. And the NY Times isn't worth a lemon as a newspaper. And Ghostbusters Reboot will be remembered as a lemon of a movie. Sorry, but I was attacked by a lemon as a child. >:(
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 18, 2016, 06:12:19 PM
Angry Joe said one thing that struck a chord with me - the original team of Ghostbusters were rank amateurs when it came to shooting their proton packs at ghosts. A large part of the comedy in the first part of the first movie was them tearing stuff up with wanton abandon. He said this "new" team are all pretty much sharpshooters each and every time. There's no suspense, no sense of danger, nothing. And that's something the original Ghostbusters flick had; it was certainly a comedy, but it had horror moments (albeit light, but still...).
One of the numerous problems with many of these "reboots".
They miss some of the more subtle situations & comedy.
Another perfect example was the comedic jabs at commercialism in the original
Robocop. Ya know.. the "I'd buy that for a dollar!" over-the-top stuff (and acting, timing, etc) that gave the classics extra character. Just one small flavorful facet of the whole, but you understand. These new remakes just plain leave such great little facets out, or completely swing & miss when they try.
It's the little things. Because, let's admit it, the plots of many of the old greats weren't all that amazing without all the extra little flavoring in between.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 18, 2016, 06:12:19 PM
Angry Joe said one thing that struck a chord with me - the original team of Ghostbusters were rank amateurs when it came to shooting their proton packs at ghosts. A large part of the comedy in the first part of the first movie was them tearing stuff up with wanton abandon. He said this "new" team are all pretty much sharpshooters each and every time. There's no suspense, no sense of danger, nothing. And that's something the original Ghostbusters flick had; it was certainly a comedy, but it had horror moments (albeit light, but still...).
At about the same time, Joe said it was a nastier movie, too, in that the ghosts actually kill people on screen (although only 2 or 3 that he recalled).
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on July 18, 2016, 06:12:19 PM
Angry Joe said one thing that struck a chord with me - the original team of Ghostbusters were rank amateurs when it came to shooting their proton packs at ghosts. A large part of the comedy in the first part of the first movie was them tearing stuff up with wanton abandon. He said this "new" team are all pretty much sharpshooters each and every time. There's no suspense, no sense of danger, nothing.
He and I must have seen different movies. There was a great deal of them practicing with the proton packs (along with other ghost-smacking gadgets) and failing horribly. Blowing, tearing and burning shit-up. In one of the lamest sight-gag bits in the movie, there was a way-too-long scene with Melissa McCarthy in an alley using a proton pack for the first time. She was getting tossed around the alley like a rag doll. Not one of them was a sharp shooter each and every time.
Interesting, 40.
Wow, this game flew under the radar... (but Angry Joe's review seemed more appropriate here):
I've owned it for a while and tried to play it three times (I am on my third try now). The Sta-Puff encounter always kicked my butt and I'd rage-uninstall.
But, since the game is technically Ghostbusters III (it's based on a script, I think, that Ackroyd and Ramis put together, intended for filming originally), and that it has all the original cast voicing their characters, it's pretty f'ing awesome. I couldn't get it to run terribly smoothly on my old rig, but on this one it runs well. I'm looking forward to finally getting through the story.
QuoteFifty fucking dollars for this piece of shit! With four dollar DLC for the original Ghostbuster outfits that everyone loves! Four fucking dollars!
Cost of Angry Joe rant....Priceless.
Well shit, I didn't realize they were rebooting THE F*FG*%R*T*%*#** GAME TOO
ARRRRG
Well, you get to battle ghost books in this one.
A game without a mini map. How innovative (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aarcentral.com%2Fpics%2Fvomit.gif&hash=f8c0cec79f834c3558ced52ccf681c80fdf7c2e4)
Ghost books and no minimap were standard in the GB(3) game, too. But you didn't need a minimap, since it was basically a linear shooter.
The GB2016 game is definitely NOT a remake of the GB(3) game. It's more like a remake of the Sanctum of Slime twin-stick shooter which followed the fairly successful Tomb Raider twin-stick shooter game.
Well here's something interesting. Ghostbusters Developer Fireforge Games Goes Bankrupt (http://kotaku.com/ghostbusters-developer-fireforge-games-goes-bankrupt-1784625739).
QuoteThree days after releasing the new Ghostbusters game, development studio Fireforge Games filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Kotaku has learned. The company has been liquidating assets throughout July in an attempt to pay off a debt of at least $12 million, according to bankruptcy filings.
Fireforge, not to be confused with a tabletop company with the same name, may only be known for the recent Ghostbusters game, which was received terribly when it was released alongside the movie on July 12. One possible explanation: The game was developed in just eight months, according to one person who worked on it. On July 15, the company filed for bankruptcy.
Also, this bit.
The Houston Press reports that the Ghostbusters reboot is not a flop (http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/ghostbusters-remake-now-officially-not-a-flop-8622080) because it made back its budget as of the start of this month. That's great for the poor slobs that work in the trenches...they have work. But the movie (even the HP author mentions this) has to make more like 400 to 500 million really to break even, or make a sequel a viable work.
I've seen a lot of positive reviews and a lot of negative reviews; the latter are not sexist at all, at least not ones I've seen. I know Leslie Jones had to take a beating on Twitter, which really is a shitty thing for her to have had to deal with. But the overall consensus among moviegoers is pretty "meh" at best. Not bad. But definitely not great, nor franchise-worthy.
Some note that it really did flop, rather hard (http://thegg.net/articles/paul-feigs-ghostbusters-2016-flops-really-hard-at-the-box-office/), but the PR and PC marketing machines at Sony are doing their level best (besides paying people to do shamelessly positive reviews (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXv3w59raZ4)...nothing really new in the movie business, but the shitstorm this movie created should have had them seeing the writing...or splatters...on the wall well in advance) to make this look like a success. But, of course they are. They invested heavily in this film. They laid off staff (http://variety.com/2016/film/news/sony-lay-offs-marketing-distribution-1201737700/) in the months leading up to its release (http://nypost.com/2016/07/20/sony-zaps-jobs-following-poor-results-in-us/), too. They fought against the negative PR their movie got just from the admittedly crappy trailers. I totally understand why they did that.
But, the Emperor's new clothes aren't necessarily clothes.
I'm also trying to understand why I hate this movie so much. It's definitely not at all because it's an all-women cast, but because of how unfunny this is, how it went through dev hell for years, how very little respect was paid to the original films, and also, the whole Emperor's New Clothes thing. Just because you crown a movie a success doesn't make it so. Neither does my bitching about this film make it any worse or better. What do I know? I'm an idiot. But I'm not spending money to go see this. I'd rather spend it to go see Suicide Squad, mayhaps.
"That sounds awful. And I liked Prometheus!" :2funny:
The "Because, Jay, if they make a bad Ghostbusters film it will ruin our childhood"/Ghostbuster 2 thing was funny too. ;D
The whole thing was brilliant. So much for the notion of a large number of racist misogynists undermining the movie.
I've had a couple of Red Letter Media videos in the background while working today. Their review of Unfriended/Paul Blart Mall Cop 2 is hilarious, but so too is their episode covering this movie.
Quote from: mirth on August 03, 2016, 05:56:39 PM
The whole thing was brilliant. So much for the notion of a large number of racist misogynists undermining the movie.
Yeah, the cast is the cast and of course they're going to jump at the chance to be Ghostbusters no matter what. It's more on the writing/directing, and Feig has turned into kind of an asshole over this whole thing. I get defending your cast, but he's really slinging the crap and alienating a lot of people that aren't even arguing with him on Twitter about his movie.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on August 03, 2016, 04:07:10 PM
"overweight virginal basement-dwelling toy unboxers"
:2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
LOL @ that vid. O0
"That's right... you!" :2funny:
Oh wow... I hadn't even heard yet (somehow) that Sony had been deleting generally negative comments and leaving the ones that made that poor AI go insane a few months ago! :o
I mean, I knew Sony was positioning criticisms that way in other regards. But wow.
That being said, I think it's going too far to claim that people who say they enjoyed it must necessarily be lying. I know people who are otherwise critical (and yet sometimes not critical enough to realize they're being played by the studio into thinking opposition must chiefly be due to misogyny or whatever... yes, those particular people are super-liberal, why do you even ask), who would have certainly given graded ambivalences or outright dislikes about the film if they had felt that, who said they enjoyed it -- and I believe them.
Granted, I understand the scepticism about media outlet gushing reviews laced with ideology boosting.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on August 03, 2016, 06:19:20 PM
I've had a couple of Red Letter Media videos in the background while working today. Their review of Unfriended/Paul Blart Mall Cop 2 is hilarious, but so too is their episode covering this movie.
"Well, if we can't kill him, maybe we can make him
want to die?... ... Hey Rich! -- would you like to talk endlessly about the new Ghostbusters film!?" :2funny: :2funny:
Also, I must retract what I quipped about earlier, about how haters of the film have to deal with it being written by the original crew. That was a misleading poster design. I am so, so sorry. I truly thought I was squinting at the poster to be able to tell if I was being misled by poster design or not -- and it still misled me.
So... mission accomplished, GB2016 producers? I have become a little dumber thanks to the existence of your film.
(Edited to add: I do stand by my original point, however, that I have no confidence the original writers would have inherently made a better movie.)