I think there are many people vastly underestimate how much Ghostbusters means to some.
Pixels, Call of Duty, even Batman vs Superman are nowhere near the same thing, for different reasons. On the surface I can see why someone would wonder why Batman Vs Superman would be similar, but those are characters with 60 years of different interpretations by different people with different ideas and different levels of quality. One bad movie doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, especially to the diehard fans.
But Ghostbusters on the other hand means something completely different to a lot of people. For a lot of people there isn't a movie more important/influential in their lives, and that isn't something that's easy to justify or explain to someone that doesn't get it. The only thing I can see as a close comparison is maybe something like Star Wars. But even then that's it own unique thing with it's own unique following that isn't quite comparable to anything else.
I don't think I've explained this well, but like I said... it's hard to explain. Ghostbusters is just one of those things that's highly reverent to a lot of people. Changing or messing with that in any way, even just by making an average reboot, rubs a lot of people the wrong way. While I fully admit there is a lot of other shit surrounding this movie, I think this is the very core that has powered a lot of the backlash. While I can't speak for everyone that has strong negative feelings towards this movie, I really don't think casting 4 men in the lead roles would have changed too many opinions in the end. Rebooting something like Ghostbusters is just a no-win situation for a lot of fans.
Critics got death threats for rating B vs S "wrong," and it and MOS have had a massive impact on nerd culture in various media and the internet itself. Batman, in particular, overshadows Ghostbusters as a cultural phenomena - so does Star Wars and Star Trek.
Ghostbusters has also had various interpretations over the years, in the comics and cartoons. Which included drastic changes in the line-up and style wise. '16 was following that trend, not starting it.
I completely agree, those things are bigger. People were shitty about BvS reviews, and people are shitty about many other movies and reviews too. There are lots of shitty people on the internet that bash people about dumb shit. Those things are all true.
All I was trying to say is Ghostbusters means a uniquely different thing to a lot of people, in a way others may not understand. And it hasn't been big in the public eye in the same way as other properties people are comparing it to. This craziness around this movie has a lot of roots in that.
How is Ghostbusters any different from what occurred with Star Wars? Not to mention Trek and Batman have had numerous interruptions through the years, in movies and in their EU's. I'm not feeling like I'm getting an adequate explanation for why this is unique this time. Sure, the craziness has roots in that, but this isn't something that GB is pioneering in. It not being as big in the public eye makes it weirder, since there is less reason for this many people to be invested to this degree.
Honestly, I'm not sure how to explain myself any better than I already have, so I'm tapping out of this discussion. I only risk getting lumped in with racists and misogynists, so there's no point in me continuing.
Only decided to write this post as you quoted me and are asking me questions directly.
How are you getting me lumping you in with the misogynists from what I posted? I've been very clear with my post that not every one who doesn't like the film is in that group - my point has been that that group exists and is massive factor in how the internet and fandom reacted to the movie. Which I feel is accurate of what went down. I didn't like the trailers, for instance, and have been upfront about that in movie threads and here before. In my first post I even had RLM's review, which did not like the movie. Many reviewers did what they did, and neither me or others in this thread are saying they're exactly the same as the GB GoldenGuzzards.
I was asking what the difference was from your post, and I showed examples of why there is very little difference going on here. Ghostbusters '16 is not a special snowflake with how misogynists and racists decided to bring down a movie recently, nor is the franchise something that is new to how an IP has evolved over time.
You weren't clear enough in why you think it's "different." What details you have told me doesn't in any way separate it from Star Wars.
I edited the racist part out because I was worried you would think I was talking about you. I wasn't so I removed it.
I don't have a way to further explain myself, I don't disagree with what you are saying necessarily, and I in no way want to defend or associate myself with the "GoldenGuzzards," so I'm trying to remove myself from the conversation. Posting about that was a mistake. Sorry.
I think the biggest takeaway I'll get from this whole shit storm is that, "yes, we need professional critics".
The internet has devalued individual critics with aggregate reviews and people gaging critical reception through the wisdoms of crowds. But I look at sites like IMDB where people are basically bandwagoning this film through mass 0 and 10 reviews and I have no faith in resulting score. There are always going to people that deal exclusively with the extremes of a numeric rating scale but this situation is fucking ridiculous.
I know IMDB rating have always been kind of suspect. But I tend to use user reviews to gage wether a movie is worth seeing or, in Amazon's case, if a product is worth buying. But now internet fandom has basically hit the tactical nuclear war button and made the problems with aggregate user reviews very obvious to everyone.
If I was a professional film critic I'd be high fiving everyone at the office at this point because my job just got a lot more valuable.
I know IMDB rating have always been kind of suspect. But I tend to use user reviews to gage wether a movie is worth seeing or, in Amazon's case, if a product is worth buying. But now internet fandom has basically hit the tactical nuclear war button and made the problems with aggregate user reviews very obvious to everyone.
I like to believe that majority of people are reasonable. When I'm on the internet I know that there are trolls out there, but given how wide spread internet access is I like to this reasonable people offset them. This proves that nope, no they don't. Reasonable people don't bandwagon ratings for a movie. Basically the un-reasonable part of the internet has the power to complete overpower the reasonable part because the reasonable part doesn't give that much of shit.
This whole fiasco I think it's a net negative for internet culture because it's going to push more of reasonable element to disengage entirely. Like why should I bother to rate things on IMDB when the whole system is devalued by the ridiculous fringe.
I like to believe that majority of people are reasonable. When I'm on the internet I know that there are trolls out there, but given how wide spread internet access is I like to this reasonable people offset them. This proves that nope, no they don't. Reasonable people don't bandwagon ratings for a movie. Basically the un-reasonable part of the internet has the power to complete overpower the reasonable part because the reasonable part doesn't give that much of shit.
This whole fiasco I think it's a net negative for internet culture because it's going to push more of reasonable element to disengage entirely. Like why should I bother to rate things on IMDB when the whole system is devalued by the ridiculous fringe.
What I hate about the internet is how effectively assholes win because the rest of us don't want to be bothered by them. Like in MMO's general chat channels are garbage factories full of trolls (in literally every MMO I've played ever) simply because normal people don't like to respond to assholish trolls who don't usually believe their stupid shit, they just want to rile you.
Its what's infuriating about trolling, most people doing it aren't even pushing their own belief, just the one that's most likely to piss people off. Like I doubt even half the people hating on ghostbusters actually care, they just know it pisses off people who do.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'd guess it would bother me a lot less if I didn't feel like it was part of a larger culture trend of polarizing any topic to the point where there is no middle anymore.
If we as a society can't rationally discuss the merits of a fantasy / comedy film I don't hold out much hope for the things that actually matter.
Also as a nerd I'm kind annoyed that we can't just talk about Ghostbusters, we have talk about all the stuff around Ghostbusters.
I haven't seen it yet, pretty sure this will be a streamer/HBO movie for me but I feel like there is a lot of mental gymnastics being done by the people wanting to support this movie against the MRA crowed to ignore the issues with Jones character specifically, but also that the entire rest of the movie is all white. Which is kind of a pattern for Fein's movies that I've seen- maybe 1 black actor rest of the cast lilly white no asians or latinos(the most under represented group in hollywood).
Given the shit storm over Ghost in the Shell, #OscarsSoWhite, and other such stuff this year, it rings a bit of "Do as I say not as I do".
I think the biggest takeaway I'll get from this whole shit storm is that, "yes, we need professional critics".
The internet has devalued individual critics with aggregate reviews and people gaging critical reception through the wisdoms of crowds. But I look at sites like IMDB where people are basically bandwagoning this film through mass 0 and 10 reviews and I have no faith in resulting score. There are always going to people that deal exclusively with the extremes of a numeric rating scale but this situation is fucking ridiculous.
I know IMDB rating have always been kind of suspect. But I tend to use user reviews to gage wether a movie is worth seeing or, in Amazon's case, if a product is worth buying. But now internet fandom has basically hit the tactical nuclear war button and made the problems with aggregate user reviews very obvious to everyone.
If I was a professional film critic I'd be high fiving everyone at the office at this point because my job just got a lot more valuable.
I have a few I will listen to as they appear to have similar tastes to me, but there is so many different ways you can critique a film and there is some serious subjective opinions and biases that will show up in each reviewers review. Have a few you like, see what the consensus is and either go see something or don't. Reminds me of back in the day and reading old Electronic Gaming Monthly game reviews, they had about 3 or 4 reviewers who would review a game and you would get an idea if it was something you would like cause you would have the guy who likes RPGs, and a dude who plays sports games or the game who likes japanese imports all talking about the game, instead of one guy who hates a genre, reviewing that genre, or a fanboy reviewing his drug of choice.
So I just watched the movie. And... I really didn't like it. I'm not going to go on a big tirade or nitpick it to death or anything like that. But aside from people shooting orange energy beams at ghosts there really wasn't much there I would/could call Ghostbusters.
Going on posts even in this thread I really feel like we must have watched different movies or something. I have a lot to think about.
I think the biggest takeaway I'll get from this whole shit storm is that, "yes, we need professional critics".
The internet has devalued individual critics with aggregate reviews and people gaging critical reception through the wisdoms of crowds. But I look at sites like IMDB where people are basically bandwagoning this film through mass 0 and 10 reviews and I have no faith in resulting score. There are always going to people that deal exclusively with the extremes of a numeric rating scale but this situation is fucking ridiculous.
I know IMDB rating have always been kind of suspect. But I tend to use user reviews to gage wether a movie is worth seeing or, in Amazon's case, if a product is worth buying. But now internet fandom has basically hit the tactical nuclear war button and made the problems with aggregate user reviews very obvious to everyone.
If I was a professional film critic I'd be high fiving everyone at the office at this point because my job just got a lot more valuable.
I'm far more concerned with the content of a review than the specific score it gets.
Even the IMDB/Rottentomato reviews and the like often have some users that get into some meat.
All those reviews that say things like "awesome stars!" or "trash 1/0 stars" and that's it? Not going to pay much attention to those in general.
So I just watched the movie. And... I really didn't like it. I'm not going to go on a big tirade or nitpick it to death or anything like that. But aside from people shooting orange energy beams at ghosts there really wasn't much there I would/could call Ghostbusters.
Going on posts even in this thread I really feel like we must have watched different movies or something. I have a lot to think about.
Even without the politics I think this would be a divisive film. I think wether you like this film or not, or how much you like it depends on if the comedy works for you.
For me, the comedy worked and even though I thought other aspects didn't work I still liked it a lot based on the strength of the comedy. But if the comedy didn't work for you I don't think there are other aspects of the film that would counterbalance that.
Gonna see it tomorrow with the wife and son, and he is psyched. Boy has been interested in ghost for as long as he could talk. I remember he wanted to watch Ghost Hunters with me as a 5 year old because he loved the thrill. He watched Ghostbusters on repeat for a month or two three years ago because we DVRed it. He went trick-or-treating as a Ghostbuster two halloweens ago. He has the Lego Ecto1, both the original and new one. Proud and pleased to be sharing this with him.
So I just watched the movie. And... I really didn't like it. I'm not going to go on a big tirade or nitpick it to death or anything like that. But aside from people shooting orange energy beams at ghosts there really wasn't much there I would/could call Ghostbusters.
Going on posts even in this thread I really feel like we must have watched different movies or something. I have a lot to think about.
Even without the politics I think this would be a divisive film. I think wether you like this film or not, or how much you like it depends on if the comedy works for you.
For me, the comedy worked and even though I thought other aspects didn't work I still liked it a lot based on the strength of the comedy. But if the comedy didn't work for you I don't think there are other aspects of the film that would counterbalance that.
That could very well be it. The humor of this compared to the original is VERY different. Something like in the original when Ray has that cheesy grin after assuring the hotel manager they'd take care of it and they are closing the doors. That still cracks me up every time 30-years later. There wasn't really anything like that in there -- unless I just missed it. Which is possible.
Humor in the original Ghostbusters felt very dry. "Where do these stairs go?" "They go up." is an example. I think that line is hilarious, but it's not a line you would ever hear in a modern comedy.
I'm not a fan of the "fall down go boom" style of comedy, and watching the trailers made me kinda cringe at the fact that they just had to throw in the tired "person jumps to crowdsurf, falls on their face, yells a joke from the ground" gag that is older than dirt.
I still haven't seen the new one, is there any part of the comedy that could be considered "subtle", or is it all just loud/in your face style comedy?
Humor in the original Ghostbusters felt very dry. "Where do these stairs go?" "They go up." is an example. I think that line is hilarious, but it's not a line you would ever hear in a modern comedy.
I'm not a fan of the "fall down go boom" style of comedy, and watching the trailers made me kinda cringe at the fact that they just had to throw in the tired "person jumps to crowdsurf, falls on their face, yells a joke from the ground" gag that is older than dirt.
I still haven't seen the new one, is there any part of the comedy that could be considered "subtle", or is it all just loud/in your face style comedy?
Anything that's rare in stores is likely to fetch a high price on ebay.
Last I heard the rarest/most valuable original 12" GI Joe from the 60s was a battlefield nurse model that no one bought because at the time girls didn't want a GI Joe and boys didn't want a Barbie Doll wearing olive drab.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Humor in the original Ghostbusters felt very dry. "Where do these stairs go?" "They go up." is an example. I think that line is hilarious, but it's not a line you would ever hear in a modern comedy.
This movie (I saw it today because someone was buying, so why not) is a Feig movie. If youve seen a Feig movie, then you know what it contains.
There really arent any open-ended lines left hanging like "Dropping off or picking up?" or "Listen! You smell something?", just about everything is commented on or reacted to with words. No joke is allowed to breathe and just be. Every bit of humor is explained.
Its not a horrid movie... but I wouldnt call it that good, either.
If youre looking for comedy along the lines of the first, redbox/netflix it. If youre a fan of Feigs other stuff, you probably wont be disappointed.
So in the DC Comics thread, they're talking about new things that DC are retroactively adding to the story of Batman.
Bruce and Barbara had a fling and got her pregnant.
And it made me realize something.
It's silly when the same people complaining about how the Ghostbusters reboot will somehow ruin their childhoods are usually the same people insisting that this should have been a sequel, rather than a reboot.
A reboot doesn't take anything away from the movie you previously enjoyed.
But a sequel certainly could. By revealing things about the characters that are better left unrevealed.
I edited the racist part out because I was worried you would think I was talking about you. I wasn't so I removed it.
I don't have a way to further explain myself, I don't disagree with what you are saying necessarily, and I in no way want to defend or associate myself with the "GoldenGuzzards," so I'm trying to remove myself from the conversation. Posting about that was a mistake. Sorry.
???
Why would I assume you were with the GoldenGuzzards, if that was what you got from my post that wasn't my intention.
edit: What's puzzling to me is why there is such a different reaction with the fandom to avoid talking about the elephant in the room concerning the movie or that criticizing the movie immediately means people will assume you're with the assholes - when this did not happen at all in the Star Wars threads with TFA. That movie had pages full of criticisms from everyone in it, to a far greater extent than this movie has.
"(The new series) will further expand the Ghostbusters cinematic universe and focus on a new generation of Ghostbusters in the year 2050 who capture ghostsaround the world with help from local teams-and some very cool gear."
Apparently I feel the same about Extreme Ghostbusters as some people feel about this new movie. It had some faults, but all in all I liked it and felt it stayed true to the core themes/tone of The Real Ghostbusters.
I see people say negative things about EGB and GB2 all the time, and they say it so matter-of-fact. I liked, and still like both of those parts of the franchise.
I liked it. In some ways it compares favorably to the original. The government isn't moronically short-sighted and the ghostbusters themselves have more heart, Patty was a fairly unique character as a blue collar history buff, the villain was a little one-dimensional but also worked from a thematic perspective (showing how different people can overcome hardships or be consumed by them, makes you wonder about his backstory beyond finding their book). The opening at the mansion is legitimately spooky, more threatening and less random than the library ghost, McKinnon knocks it out of the park while the others at least carry their weight. Kind of bizarre seeing McCarthy play a complete straight man, though she was half-straight in "Spy" i guess. The science was all technobabble mixed with a bit of actual folklore, but i didn't see the contradiction of their logic model: the proton packs were never used to neutralize ghosts, only to toss them around and seemingly knock them out. Hemsworth's character was delightfully moronic.
Spoiler-ish stuff:
I'm amused at how casually Murray's character was killed off. I wonder if that was his idea. The villain being directly tied to the hero's origin is something that i understand because it works on a thematic level, but in this movie like in others, it also makes the world feel smaller. Name drops like Ivo Shandor, characters like Vigo, or the stories of Gozer that possessed-Louis tell of past Gozer events help make the world feel a lot more lived-in.
The jokes didn't all hit the mark, but the fairly breathless pace of the comedy helped there. If you didn't like something, it just moved onto the next and kept you smiling.
Anything that's rare in stores is likely to fetch a high price on ebay.
Last I heard the rarest/most valuable original 12" GI Joe from the 60s was a battlefield nurse model that no one bought because at the time girls didn't want a GI Joe and boys didn't want a Barbie Doll wearing olive drab.
When I say rare I mean due to collectors actively searching for and purchasing.
And the demographic of who collects action figures and toys has expanded greatly since fifty years ago. A huge chunk of revenue for things like 1/12 or 1/10 scale figures like some of the new GB stuff is collectors, if not exclusively (like Marvel Legends).
The cameos didn't really do much for me, aside from Annie Potts and Ernie Hudson, but I really enjoyed the less in-your-face references, like Kristin Wiig trying to get into a restaurant through the floor to ceiling windows or the big Twinkie billboard
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I liked it. In some ways it compares favorably to the original. The government isn't moronically short-sighted and the ghostbusters themselves have more heart, Patty was a fairly unique character as a blue collar history buff, the villain was a little one-dimensional but also worked from a thematic perspective (showing how different people can overcome hardships or be consumed by them, makes you wonder about his backstory beyond finding their book). The opening at the mansion is legitimately spooky, more threatening and less random than the library ghost, McKinnon knocks it out of the park while the others at least carry their weight. Kind of bizarre seeing McCarthy play a complete straight man, though she was half-straight in "Spy" i guess. The science was all technobabble mixed with a bit of actual folklore, but i didn't see the contradiction of their logic model: the proton packs were never used to neutralize ghosts, only to toss them around and seemingly knock them out. Hemsworth's character was delightfully moronic.
Spoiler-ish stuff:
I'm amused at how casually Murray's character was killed off. I wonder if that was his idea. The villain being directly tied to the hero's origin is something that i understand because it works on a thematic level, but in this movie like in others, it also makes the world feel smaller. Name drops like Ivo Shandor, characters like Vigo, or the stories of Gozer that possessed-Louis tell of past Gozer events help make the world feel a lot more lived-in.
The jokes didn't all hit the mark, but the fairly breathless pace of the comedy helped there. If you didn't like something, it just moved onto the next and kept you smiling.
one dimensional villains are pretty standard for GB
I mean, Zul didn't have like a complex backstory and personality
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I got really tired of the Holtzman shtick early on. By the time she did the sing-song gag it was too late. It may have worked if it had come more out of left-field. But eh, I dunno. I still feel like I saw a different movie than everyone else.
I got really tired of the Holtzman shtick early on. By the time she did the sing-song gag it was too late. It may have worked if it had come more out of left-field. But eh, I dunno. I still feel like I saw a different movie than everyone else.
I really didn't like how they beat every single joke to fucking death.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I liked it. In some ways it compares favorably to the original. The government isn't moronically short-sighted and the ghostbusters themselves have more heart, Patty was a fairly unique character as a blue collar history buff, the villain was a little one-dimensional but also worked from a thematic perspective (showing how different people can overcome hardships or be consumed by them, makes you wonder about his backstory beyond finding their book). The opening at the mansion is legitimately spooky, more threatening and less random than the library ghost, McKinnon knocks it out of the park while the others at least carry their weight. Kind of bizarre seeing McCarthy play a complete straight man, though she was half-straight in "Spy" i guess. The science was all technobabble mixed with a bit of actual folklore, but i didn't see the contradiction of their logic model: the proton packs were never used to neutralize ghosts, only to toss them around and seemingly knock them out. Hemsworth's character was delightfully moronic.
Spoiler-ish stuff:
I'm amused at how casually Murray's character was killed off. I wonder if that was his idea. The villain being directly tied to the hero's origin is something that i understand because it works on a thematic level, but in this movie like in others, it also makes the world feel smaller. Name drops like Ivo Shandor, characters like Vigo, or the stories of Gozer that possessed-Louis tell of past Gozer events help make the world feel a lot more lived-in.
The jokes didn't all hit the mark, but the fairly breathless pace of the comedy helped there. If you didn't like something, it just moved onto the next and kept you smiling.
one dimensional villains are pretty standard for GB
I mean, Zul didn't have like a complex backstory and personality
I dunno.
During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the he came as a large and moving Torb!
The cameos didn't really do much for me, aside from Annie Potts and Ernie Hudson, but I really enjoyed the less in-your-face references, like Kristin Wiig trying to get into a restaurant through the floor to ceiling windows or the big Twinkie billboard
I'm pretty sure that ...
... the "We're on the cusp of something ..." speech was also lifted from the original, in whole or in part.
The cameos didn't really do much for me, aside from Annie Potts and Ernie Hudson, but I really enjoyed the less in-your-face references, like Kristin Wiig trying to get into a restaurant through the floor to ceiling windows or the big Twinkie billboard
Oh I totally missed the window reference. That's actually pretty funny.
I liked the movie. My viewing was kind of ruined by a family of assholes who decided to bring an infant to the theater, and never took it out when it started making noise. I'll have to see it again. >.>
Also this was a 9:15pm showing. No idea why they'd have a baby out that late. Some people just shouldn't be parents.
Posts
I edited the racist part out because I was worried you would think I was talking about you. I wasn't so I removed it.
I don't have a way to further explain myself, I don't disagree with what you are saying necessarily, and I in no way want to defend or associate myself with the "GoldenGuzzards," so I'm trying to remove myself from the conversation. Posting about that was a mistake. Sorry.
The internet has devalued individual critics with aggregate reviews and people gaging critical reception through the wisdoms of crowds. But I look at sites like IMDB where people are basically bandwagoning this film through mass 0 and 10 reviews and I have no faith in resulting score. There are always going to people that deal exclusively with the extremes of a numeric rating scale but this situation is fucking ridiculous.
I know IMDB rating have always been kind of suspect. But I tend to use user reviews to gage wether a movie is worth seeing or, in Amazon's case, if a product is worth buying. But now internet fandom has basically hit the tactical nuclear war button and made the problems with aggregate user reviews very obvious to everyone.
If I was a professional film critic I'd be high fiving everyone at the office at this point because my job just got a lot more valuable.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
This whole fiasco I think it's a net negative for internet culture because it's going to push more of reasonable element to disengage entirely. Like why should I bother to rate things on IMDB when the whole system is devalued by the ridiculous fringe.
What I hate about the internet is how effectively assholes win because the rest of us don't want to be bothered by them. Like in MMO's general chat channels are garbage factories full of trolls (in literally every MMO I've played ever) simply because normal people don't like to respond to assholish trolls who don't usually believe their stupid shit, they just want to rile you.
Its what's infuriating about trolling, most people doing it aren't even pushing their own belief, just the one that's most likely to piss people off. Like I doubt even half the people hating on ghostbusters actually care, they just know it pisses off people who do.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If we as a society can't rationally discuss the merits of a fantasy / comedy film I don't hold out much hope for the things that actually matter.
Given the shit storm over Ghost in the Shell, #OscarsSoWhite, and other such stuff this year, it rings a bit of "Do as I say not as I do".
I have a few I will listen to as they appear to have similar tastes to me, but there is so many different ways you can critique a film and there is some serious subjective opinions and biases that will show up in each reviewers review. Have a few you like, see what the consensus is and either go see something or don't. Reminds me of back in the day and reading old Electronic Gaming Monthly game reviews, they had about 3 or 4 reviewers who would review a game and you would get an idea if it was something you would like cause you would have the guy who likes RPGs, and a dude who plays sports games or the game who likes japanese imports all talking about the game, instead of one guy who hates a genre, reviewing that genre, or a fanboy reviewing his drug of choice.
Going on posts even in this thread I really feel like we must have watched different movies or something. I have a lot to think about.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I'm far more concerned with the content of a review than the specific score it gets.
Even the IMDB/Rottentomato reviews and the like often have some users that get into some meat.
All those reviews that say things like "awesome stars!" or "trash 1/0 stars" and that's it? Not going to pay much attention to those in general.
Even without the politics I think this would be a divisive film. I think wether you like this film or not, or how much you like it depends on if the comedy works for you.
For me, the comedy worked and even though I thought other aspects didn't work I still liked it a lot based on the strength of the comedy. But if the comedy didn't work for you I don't think there are other aspects of the film that would counterbalance that.
That could very well be it. The humor of this compared to the original is VERY different. Something like in the original when Ray has that cheesy grin after assuring the hotel manager they'd take care of it and they are closing the doors. That still cracks me up every time 30-years later. There wasn't really anything like that in there -- unless I just missed it. Which is possible.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I'm not a fan of the "fall down go boom" style of comedy, and watching the trailers made me kinda cringe at the fact that they just had to throw in the tired "person jumps to crowdsurf, falls on their face, yells a joke from the ground" gag that is older than dirt.
I still haven't seen the new one, is there any part of the comedy that could be considered "subtle", or is it all just loud/in your face style comedy?
You might like Kevin.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I saw Ghostbusters action figures (from the reboot) on clearance at Target before the movie even released.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Hopefully this finally gets them to make stuff for other female characters?
If it's a situation in which the figures of the new GBers aren't selling they'll fall back on the old "female action figures don't sell" line.
Even though when a line makes a female character that is a decent figure it's usually rare to see in stores and fetches inflated prices on eBay.
Last I heard the rarest/most valuable original 12" GI Joe from the 60s was a battlefield nurse model that no one bought because at the time girls didn't want a GI Joe and boys didn't want a Barbie Doll wearing olive drab.
This movie (I saw it today because someone was buying, so why not) is a Feig movie. If youve seen a Feig movie, then you know what it contains.
There really arent any open-ended lines left hanging like "Dropping off or picking up?" or "Listen! You smell something?", just about everything is commented on or reacted to with words. No joke is allowed to breathe and just be. Every bit of humor is explained.
Its not a horrid movie... but I wouldnt call it that good, either.
If youre looking for comedy along the lines of the first, redbox/netflix it. If youre a fan of Feigs other stuff, you probably wont be disappointed.
And it made me realize something.
It's silly when the same people complaining about how the Ghostbusters reboot will somehow ruin their childhoods are usually the same people insisting that this should have been a sequel, rather than a reboot.
A reboot doesn't take anything away from the movie you previously enjoyed.
But a sequel certainly could. By revealing things about the characters that are better left unrevealed.
???
Why would I assume you were with the GoldenGuzzards, if that was what you got from my post that wasn't my intention.
edit: What's puzzling to me is why there is such a different reaction with the fandom to avoid talking about the elephant in the room concerning the movie or that criticizing the movie immediately means people will assume you're with the assholes - when this did not happen at all in the Star Wars threads with TFA. That movie had pages full of criticisms from everyone in it, to a far greater extent than this movie has.
Fan made proton packs go for $1000 - $5000 on eBay.
If the action figure sales continue to be encouraging, Sony could try mass producing and selling certified replicas.
It's not like they haven't taken bigger risks than that in the past...
Not to mention that MLP has proven that female characters can have crossover appeal.
Yet they aren't going to do it - the next GB cartoon will be a future cast with new characters, not the all female squad from the '16 movie.
http://movieweb.com/ghostbusters-ecto-force-animated-tv-show-2018/
Hmmm....
I see people say negative things about EGB and GB2 all the time, and they say it so matter-of-fact. I liked, and still like both of those parts of the franchise.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Spoiler-ish stuff:
The jokes didn't all hit the mark, but the fairly breathless pace of the comedy helped there. If you didn't like something, it just moved onto the next and kept you smiling.
When I say rare I mean due to collectors actively searching for and purchasing.
And the demographic of who collects action figures and toys has expanded greatly since fifty years ago. A huge chunk of revenue for things like 1/12 or 1/10 scale figures like some of the new GB stuff is collectors, if not exclusively (like Marvel Legends).
- John Stuart Mill
one dimensional villains are pretty standard for GB
I mean, Zul didn't have like a complex backstory and personality
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I really didn't like how they beat every single joke to fucking death.
I dunno.
During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the he came as a large and moving Torb!
Torbs are pretty complex!
I'm pretty sure that ...
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Oh I totally missed the window reference. That's actually pretty funny.
Also this was a 9:15pm showing. No idea why they'd have a baby out that late. Some people just shouldn't be parents.