I've seen enough while trying to eek my way into a cuddle sesh to know all cops are ignorant and will not help anyone, all husbands are inherently cheaters and or murderers, and sons are the only people who do horrible shit.
It's baffling.
"Columbo is an awful show because it teaches audiences that the entire human population is made up of murderers."
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I've seen enough while trying to eek my way into a cuddle sesh to know all cops are ignorant and will not help anyone, all husbands are inherently cheaters and or murderers, and sons are the only people who do horrible shit.
It's baffling.
"Columbo is an awful show because it teaches audiences that the entire human population is made up of murderers."
Unless youve spent nearly as much time actually watching them as I have, I find your opinion on them invalid.
As part of the idiot demographic I am always glad of representation of my people in media
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The whole scene with the first ghost they actually captured was really good, from start to finish.
Actually one thing that bothered me was the scene when Wiig released it for Bill Murray's character. I still don't understand why, besides <plot device>. That conflict seemed super artificial.
I'm late to the party here, but my two cents: Erin Gilbert is a legitimate scientist who is passionate about her work and who just made a major discovery. But instead of being acclaimed, she was being called a fraud to her face by a man who earlier called her a fraud and laughed her off on national television. Now that would get under anyone's skin - but add to that the fact she was bullied as a child because of her belief in ghosts, and got fired from Columbia moments before getting tenure because of her belief in ghosts. The taunting by Heiss was the proverbial straw that broke her.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2016
Just to let people know, just because A exists, it doesnt invalidate B.
Just because the Doofus Husband trope exists doesnt mean sexism in Hollywood is not there.
It just means Hollywood and human nature is awful in yet another way.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The doofy husband sitcoms are often wish fulfillment since the message tends to be, "you can be a fat slob and a super hot woman will still marry you."
I saw the movie and it was OK. It felt like they took a lot of inspiration from 30 Rock. It's this exaggerated world where there's already lots of weird things going on but everyone treats it like it's normal. Like how the first joke was an offhand mention about the haunted house having an anti-Irish fence. And Hemsworth's character is basically Jon Hamm's character on 30 Rock. But it never really gets as clever as 30 Rock or Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.
KingofMadCows on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Instances of sexism usually involve both genders, the doofus husband in those commercials exists so that the nagging wife can shake her head and use whatever miracle product to do the house work. It's basically gussing up the commercials from the 50s that sold housewives home appliances / products. You can have the woman be as nakedly excited about doing housework as in the 50s because a) we've become more sensitive to gender role reinforcement b) we are way more cynical culturally then 50s, so you have this idiot husband character that she shakes her at and she saves the day by doing all the housework.
I'm not an expert on modern feminism but from my understanding is that gender roles often demean and constrain both genders. For instance, stereotype is the women are emotional and man are logical, for women this means their judgement is often called into question for men this means that crying in public would make you look weak / mentally unstable.
The MRA stuff you see on the internet is weird because if anything, these are the people that should be working with feminists to remove harmful gender stereotypes and roles. Instead we have a lot of straw man MRA and feminists yelling at each other.
Anyway, I actually think this is super off topic for this movie. Maybe I'm being dense about it, but I like to think I have a critical eye to subtext in film and I think you have to do some mental gymnastics to come up with instances where this movie portrays the entire male gender in a negative light. I mean Kevin (Hemsworth's character) is an idiot, but the Ghostbusters never imply that he is an idiot because of his gender or that he somehow represents all of men. If anything they are shocked by how incredibly dumb he is. The villain in the movie is described by critics as being a straw man MRA for the girls to take down, but he is a misanthrope, who just hates humanity and doesn't show any preference to men or women. Hell, I'd argue that the only characters he identifies with are the Ghostbusters,
he is setup as a darker version of Erin Gilbert's character who has been pushed over the edge by rejection from society. Keep in mind that Erin Gilbert straight up kills someone in this movie so isn't that far away from him.
I mean they do shoot a monster in the dick, but everyone knows that shooting someone in the dick is the essence of comedy.
The whole scene with the first ghost they actually captured was really good, from start to finish.
Actually one thing that bothered me was the scene when Wiig released it for Bill Murray's character. I still don't understand why, besides <plot device>. That conflict seemed super artificial.
I'm late to the party here, but my two cents: Erin Gilbert is a legitimate scientist who is passionate about her work and who just made a major discovery. But instead of being acclaimed, she was being called a fraud to her face by a man who earlier called her a fraud and laughed her off on national television. Now that would get under anyone's skin - but add to that the fact she was bullied as a child because of her belief in ghosts, and got fired from Columbia moments before getting tenure because of her belief in ghosts. The taunting by Heiss was the proverbial straw that broke her.
The entire scene was purely about character reveal. You could remove it from the script entirely, and it wouldn't change the overall structure.
If you want to know why a scene that doesn't change the story structure is still in the script, the answer is, "Because Bill Murray."
0
Options
MackenzierGold Star Police NinjaLurking... less than usual.Registered Userregular
edited July 2016
Well, my wife and I decided to see this last night and I can confidently say that it is, indeed, a movie. I didn't love it and I didn't hate it (except for Hemsworth's character / Wiig's creepy fawning over such); watchable, but it felt like it never fully capitalized on its potential.
Mrs. Mackenzier was very happy that Leslie Jones' character much more level than she was portrayed in the trailers, and Kate McKinnon was a joy in almost every scene. However, we both found McCarthy and Wiig so utterly bland in this. They literally could have been replaced by almost any other pair of actors in Hollywood with similar results.
The pacing also felt kind of off, great swaths of filler and then MAJOR CHARACTER POINT dropped out of nowhere. Really seemed like there were a number of transitions that jumped over supporting plot points for later reveals, like Kevin
suddenly declaring that he's going to be a Ghostbuster too and they can't stop him from doing it. Where did this stem from? Nothing in his scenes to that point displayed any trait or drive that would push him in this direction.
Ultimately, it was fine; not high cinema at its finest but undeserving of the vitriol and bile it is targeted with - a summer popcorn flick of minimal expectations, that is worth a watch but probably not a revisit. And it definitely isn't worthy of the furor it raised... for (capital F) Feminists and "MRA's" to choose to clash over this film, I think they could have picked more strategic battlegrounds.
EDIT: That aside, I'm curious what they'll do with the sequel if it gets greenlit. Stronger writing, tighter editing, maybe lose Feig.
The pacing also felt kind of off, great swaths of filler and then MAJOR CHARACTER POINT dropped out of nowhere. Really seemed like there were a number of transitions that jumped over supporting plot points for later reveals, like Kevin
suddenly declaring that he's going to be a Ghostbuster too and they can't stop him from doing it. Where did this stem from? Nothing in his scenes to that point displayed any trait or drive that would push him in this direction.
There was actually a scene in a trailer or vignette I saw on YouTube that made this make sense.
Kevin suddenly realizes that there are ghosts and declares "someone should form a group and build some equipment and go catch these ghosts" and the girls respond "yeah... That's pretty much what we're already doing here."
Obviously it got cut for length, and I wish it hadn't because without it the story does stumble a bit.
The film also had that weird thing with clipping out the dance scene and showing it in the credits.
They really needed to explain why the bad guy was so powerful. Did he make a deal with Zuul? Maybe that is saved for the sequel.
Same way that Ivo Shandor designed building with NASA technology many decades before NASA ever existed.
Because science.
No one questions how the Ghostbusters come up with technology for actually capturing and trapping Ghosts, they just accept the fact that science is awesome.
It would be great if they came up with some lore for their tech. Show some Ghostbusters in the 1950s or something.
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I get the impression the bad dude was getting guidance from a ghost to build his magnet things, but didn't really understand how he became such a powerful ghost himself. Maybe cause he died connected to the ghost machine?
the lower part of the building swirled away and everything went back to normal when the portal was closed. It reminded me of the reality warping in Beetlejuice. It makes you wonder if there have been some real paranormal cases where stuff like that happened. The idea had to come from somewhere.
They really needed to explain why the bad guy was so powerful. Did he make a deal with Zuul? Maybe that is saved for the sequel.
Is Zuul the badguy in new Ghostbusters?
In the original, Zuul was the dog, Gozer was the actual villain.
Zuul is mentioned in an end-credits scene - Patty is listening to some recordings the GBs made in potentially haunted areas, mentions she heard something strange, and asks "What is 'Zuul?'"
The film also had that weird thing with clipping out the dance scene and showing it in the credits.
There's nothing weird about that.
It was the obvious next step in the use of his crowd control powers, and while it would've absolutely killed the pacing and been completely out of place in the actual movie, it made for a fun credit's sequence.
+5
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
Zuul is the Gatekeeper. I am wondering if the bad guy was dealing with her.
It would be a good explanation for how the bad guy knew how to do all his crazy stuff. Like you said, they never really give much explanation about that, beyond him being a mad genius. Would be cool if Gozer and/or his heralds are prepping another dimension for invasion.
Finally got a chance to see it this weekend. It was on par with the second Ghostbusters, which was about what I expected. There are signs it could have been better but they just can't seem to deliver a joke and let it stand on its own.
For example, in the original there's a sight gag near the beginning where a student is getting electric shocks and starts getting the psychic card test questions right. Venkman puts the card down quickly but doesn't otherwise comment on it other than to lie and say it was wrong. If you only listen or don't watch closely you might not even know there was a gag there.
Compare that to the gag where Kevin rubs his eyes through his glasses. They let everyone cast sideways glances at each other but then should have left it at that. It would have been an amusing running gag if it happened a couple more times. We don't need them to ask why there is no glass unless it's a setup for an even bigger punchline, but saying it was because he didn't like cleaning them isn't any new or interesting about his character.
The first time they turn on the proton packs no one says they are incredibly dangerous; instead Egon tries to back as far away as he can in a tiny elevator. They show instead of tell and the physical comedy sells the joke. If they did that in this one Abby would have to ask Erin why she was trying to hide, she would deny that she's scared, there'd be some other banter and the joke would be stepped on. Less is more.
I'm not sure if it's the writing, directing or if comedic tastes have changed in 30 years, but there aren't enough times like Patty's one-liner in the room of mannequins where they have confidence in the joke and let it stand without trying to explain it to death.
With regards to the male incompetency, I believe its more common here than there. Dads are often portrayed as incompetent at parenting in many of our local shows and advertising especially, so this is probably a localised thing. It is something that this particular "mums and bubs" reviewer cares about, because they mention both when they are lacking in movies they review. You may not think its an issue, but some people care about positive, balanced male and female influences. If you want to read more about it, here is an article http://www.mamamia.com.au/stupid-male-characters/ Dismissing male issues because females have it worse just creates men who are constantly told they have it better while observing a world that benefits females due to equality initiatives - leading to men who are angry at women. I deal with a lot of young guys in this boat, and the patterns are always the same.
This is a tangent but this bothers the shit out of me. Every commercial you see, especially if it is selling anything even remotely "domestic" (soaps, cleaners, etc) has some idiot guy doing something wrong and his wife correcting him. Men in commercials are too stupid to change diapers, clean counters, load dishwashers, drive cars, you name it. The typical "family oriented" sitcom is a dumb, usually fat husband with an attractive, pushy wife who nags him 24/7 because he just can't stop screwing up.
I still haven't seen Ghostbusters but from what I have seen of Channing Tatum's character his stupidity doesn't really bother me, he's just the gender swapped version of the stereotypical "dumb/ditzy blonde bimbo" female, but the whole "incompetent men" archetype is everywhere. It's this massive silent sexism that will surprise you with how often you see it once you start keeping an eye out.
Ch...Channing Tatum?
That trope especially in advertising has been around for at least 35 years plus, if not longer. Whats sad though is that in a lot of targeted advertising towards younger men with the old "buy this and sexy woman will instantly find you attractive" cliche has pretty much died down over the past few years for being outdated and sexist. However, this particular tired trope of the imcompetent male one is still considered acceptable.
Finally got a chance to see it this weekend. It was on par with the second Ghostbusters, which was about what I expected. There are signs it could have been better but they just can't seem to deliver a joke and let it stand on its own.
For example, in the original there's a sight gag near the beginning where a student is getting electric shocks and starts getting the psychic card test questions right. Venkman puts the card down quickly but doesn't otherwise comment on it other than to lie and say it was wrong. If you only listen or don't watch closely you might not even know there was a gag there.
Compare that to the gag where Kevin rubs his eyes through his glasses. They let everyone cast sideways glances at each other but then should have left it at that. It would have been an amusing running gag if it happened a couple more times. We don't need them to ask why there is no glass unless it's a setup for an even bigger punchline, but saying it was because he didn't like cleaning them isn't any new or interesting about his character.
The first time they turn on the proton packs no one says they are incredibly dangerous; instead Egon tries to back as far away as he can in a tiny elevator. They show instead of tell and the physical comedy sells the joke. If they did that in this one Abby would have to ask Erin why she was trying to hide, she would deny that she's scared, there'd be some other banter and the joke would be stepped on. Less is more.
I'm not sure if it's the writing, directing or if comedic tastes have changed in 30 years, but there aren't enough times like Patty's one-liner in the room of mannequins where they have confidence in the joke and let it stand without trying to explain it to death.
This so much. I haven't been able to articulate it really, but this is exactly how I feel about comedies in general lately. It really seems like comedies in general have been moving this direction for the last 30 years. There seems to be no place for subtlety anymore.
With regards to the male incompetency, I believe its more common here than there. Dads are often portrayed as incompetent at parenting in many of our local shows and advertising especially, so this is probably a localised thing. It is something that this particular "mums and bubs" reviewer cares about, because they mention both when they are lacking in movies they review. You may not think its an issue, but some people care about positive, balanced male and female influences. If you want to read more about it, here is an article http://www.mamamia.com.au/stupid-male-characters/ Dismissing male issues because females have it worse just creates men who are constantly told they have it better while observing a world that benefits females due to equality initiatives - leading to men who are angry at women. I deal with a lot of young guys in this boat, and the patterns are always the same.
This is a tangent but this bothers the shit out of me. Every commercial you see, especially if it is selling anything even remotely "domestic" (soaps, cleaners, etc) has some idiot guy doing something wrong and his wife correcting him. Men in commercials are too stupid to change diapers, clean counters, load dishwashers, drive cars, you name it. The typical "family oriented" sitcom is a dumb, usually fat husband with an attractive, pushy wife who nags him 24/7 because he just can't stop screwing up.
I still haven't seen Ghostbusters but from what I have seen of Channing Tatum's character his stupidity doesn't really bother me, he's just the gender swapped version of the stereotypical "dumb/ditzy blonde bimbo" female, but the whole "incompetent men" archetype is everywhere. It's this massive silent sexism that will surprise you with how often you see it once you start keeping an eye out.
Ch...Channing Tatum?
That trope especially in advertising has been around for at least 35 years plus, if not longer. Whats sad though is that in a lot of targeted advertising towards younger men with the old "buy this and sexy woman will instantly find you attractive" cliche has pretty much died down over the past few years for being outdated and sexist. However, this particular tired trope of the imcompetent male one is still considered acceptable.
no no it ABSOLUTELY hasn't
Yes it has, Speaking to a number of advertising agencies just this morning, compared to only 5 years ago has seen a significant reduction in a particular target of advertising as mentioned as quite simply it doesn't sell like it used to anymore and has left to reserve it to internet advertising only now. In the UK they are trying to curtail sexualised advertising online too as to avoid children from viewing inappropriate content.
Look at a few years back and every piece of advertising aimed towards young men from Television to print media and online was nothing but sexualised glamour.
Anyhow The Ghostbusters movie tie in game became such a flop the company has gone bust. Rumours saying they only spent 8 months on developing the title.
With regards to the male incompetency, I believe its more common here than there. Dads are often portrayed as incompetent at parenting in many of our local shows and advertising especially, so this is probably a localised thing. It is something that this particular "mums and bubs" reviewer cares about, because they mention both when they are lacking in movies they review. You may not think its an issue, but some people care about positive, balanced male and female influences. If you want to read more about it, here is an article http://www.mamamia.com.au/stupid-male-characters/ Dismissing male issues because females have it worse just creates men who are constantly told they have it better while observing a world that benefits females due to equality initiatives - leading to men who are angry at women. I deal with a lot of young guys in this boat, and the patterns are always the same.
This is a tangent but this bothers the shit out of me. Every commercial you see, especially if it is selling anything even remotely "domestic" (soaps, cleaners, etc) has some idiot guy doing something wrong and his wife correcting him. Men in commercials are too stupid to change diapers, clean counters, load dishwashers, drive cars, you name it. The typical "family oriented" sitcom is a dumb, usually fat husband with an attractive, pushy wife who nags him 24/7 because he just can't stop screwing up.
I still haven't seen Ghostbusters but from what I have seen of Channing Tatum's character his stupidity doesn't really bother me, he's just the gender swapped version of the stereotypical "dumb/ditzy blonde bimbo" female, but the whole "incompetent men" archetype is everywhere. It's this massive silent sexism that will surprise you with how often you see it once you start keeping an eye out.
Ch...Channing Tatum?
That trope especially in advertising has been around for at least 35 years plus, if not longer. Whats sad though is that in a lot of targeted advertising towards younger men with the old "buy this and sexy woman will instantly find you attractive" cliche has pretty much died down over the past few years for being outdated and sexist. However, this particular tired trope of the imcompetent male one is still considered acceptable.
no no it ABSOLUTELY hasn't
Yes it has, Speaking to a number of advertising agencies just this morning, compared to only 5 years ago has seen a significant reduction in a particular target of advertising as mentioned as quite simply it doesn't sell like it used to anymore and has left to reserve it to internet advertising only now. In the UK they are trying to curtail sexualised advertising online too as to avoid children from viewing inappropriate content.
Look at a few years back and every piece of advertising aimed towards young men from Television to print media and online was nothing but sexualised glamour.
Anyhow The Ghostbusters movie tie in game became such a flop the company has gone bust. Rumours saying they only spent 8 months on developing the title.
I still see commercials like that all day every day when I'm at the gym.
They're still absolutely happening and there's a lot of them especially during sports. A good 90% of the commercials for men's products have some random sexy women just wander in to put her hand on the guy's shoulder once he has The Product or have her stare longingly at him. Of course, she's always half his age to boot.
Anyhow The Ghostbusters movie tie in game became such a flop the company has gone bust. Rumours saying they only spent 8 months on developing the title.
The writing for the opening cinematic of the game made me physically cringe. So bad.
With regards to the male incompetency, I believe its more common here than there. Dads are often portrayed as incompetent at parenting in many of our local shows and advertising especially, so this is probably a localised thing. It is something that this particular "mums and bubs" reviewer cares about, because they mention both when they are lacking in movies they review. You may not think its an issue, but some people care about positive, balanced male and female influences. If you want to read more about it, here is an article http://www.mamamia.com.au/stupid-male-characters/ Dismissing male issues because females have it worse just creates men who are constantly told they have it better while observing a world that benefits females due to equality initiatives - leading to men who are angry at women. I deal with a lot of young guys in this boat, and the patterns are always the same.
This is a tangent but this bothers the shit out of me. Every commercial you see, especially if it is selling anything even remotely "domestic" (soaps, cleaners, etc) has some idiot guy doing something wrong and his wife correcting him. Men in commercials are too stupid to change diapers, clean counters, load dishwashers, drive cars, you name it. The typical "family oriented" sitcom is a dumb, usually fat husband with an attractive, pushy wife who nags him 24/7 because he just can't stop screwing up.
I still haven't seen Ghostbusters but from what I have seen of Channing Tatum's character his stupidity doesn't really bother me, he's just the gender swapped version of the stereotypical "dumb/ditzy blonde bimbo" female, but the whole "incompetent men" archetype is everywhere. It's this massive silent sexism that will surprise you with how often you see it once you start keeping an eye out.
Ch...Channing Tatum?
That trope especially in advertising has been around for at least 35 years plus, if not longer. Whats sad though is that in a lot of targeted advertising towards younger men with the old "buy this and sexy woman will instantly find you attractive" cliche has pretty much died down over the past few years for being outdated and sexist. However, this particular tired trope of the imcompetent male one is still considered acceptable.
no no it ABSOLUTELY hasn't
Yes it has, Speaking to a number of advertising agencies just this morning, compared to only 5 years ago has seen a significant reduction in a particular target of advertising as mentioned as quite simply it doesn't sell like it used to anymore and has left to reserve it to internet advertising only now. In the UK they are trying to curtail sexualised advertising online too as to avoid children from viewing inappropriate content.
Look at a few years back and every piece of advertising aimed towards young men from Television to print media and online was nothing but sexualised glamour.
Anyhow The Ghostbusters movie tie in game became such a flop the company has gone bust. Rumours saying they only spent 8 months on developing the title.
I still see commercials like that all day every day when I'm at the gym.
They're still absolutely happening and there's a lot of them especially during sports. A good 90% of the commercials for men's products have some random sexy women just wander in to put her hand on the guy's shoulder once he has The Product or have her stare longingly at him. Of course, she's always half his age to boot.
Again not to get too off topic, I can see where you are coming from and yes while it's improved (and trust me its improved dramatically from what we were seeing only a few years ago) there are still lots of improvements that need to be made and go further.
Btw does anyone know what the current numbers for how the film is doing now its been out in most markets? I keep seeing conflicting reports from Ok/pretty well to tanking.
Also sorta related to Ghostbusters 2016 impact with having gender reversed roles, there seems to be rumours of other 80s franchises being penned, im not quite sure that Hollywood are taking all the right lessons with this but baby steps and all can only be a good thing.
I don't think people go to the movies in the summer anymore. There's Finding Dory and Civil War, but everything else is either barely budget or a huge loss
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
People are finally saying no with their wallets to remakes and sequels and bad movies. It's been in the making for a while, but it's finally showing up this year.
A lot of smaller budget movies are doing well, Lights Out, Purge 3, Conjuring 2 made 300 million (!), Blake Lively Shark movie.
People want to go to the movies, they just don't like what's being put in front of them just because it's a big budget movie. No one wanted Tarzan, or Ghostbuster remake, even BFG seemed severely out of place.
Finally got a chance to see it this weekend. It was on par with the second Ghostbusters, which was about what I expected. There are signs it could have been better but they just can't seem to deliver a joke and let it stand on its own.
For example, in the original there's a sight gag near the beginning where a student is getting electric shocks and starts getting the psychic card test questions right. Venkman puts the card down quickly but doesn't otherwise comment on it other than to lie and say it was wrong. If you only listen or don't watch closely you might not even know there was a gag there.
Compare that to the gag where Kevin rubs his eyes through his glasses. They let everyone cast sideways glances at each other but then should have left it at that. It would have been an amusing running gag if it happened a couple more times. We don't need them to ask why there is no glass unless it's a setup for an even bigger punchline, but saying it was because he didn't like cleaning them isn't any new or interesting about his character.
The first time they turn on the proton packs no one says they are incredibly dangerous; instead Egon tries to back as far away as he can in a tiny elevator. They show instead of tell and the physical comedy sells the joke. If they did that in this one Abby would have to ask Erin why she was trying to hide, she would deny that she's scared, there'd be some other banter and the joke would be stepped on. Less is more.
I'm not sure if it's the writing, directing or if comedic tastes have changed in 30 years, but there aren't enough times like Patty's one-liner in the room of mannequins where they have confidence in the joke and let it stand without trying to explain it to death.
This so much. I haven't been able to articulate it really, but this is exactly how I feel about comedies in general lately. It really seems like comedies in general have been moving this direction for the last 30 years. There seems to be no place for subtlety anymore.
There's something to be said about forcing the gang to make due with their Proton packs--their body language betraying their concerns about walking around with nuclear accelerators on their backs--and fight off ghosts like that, versus giving the gang proton packs, anti-ghost grenades, ghost power gloves, ghost pistols, etc., and a slow-motion action movie montage.
The second one makes for a much better action movie. The first one is for a much better comedy.
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
The extra weapons would've felt more natural if this were a sequel. The classic proton packs are outdated, 20 year old tech, so Holtzman miniaturised it into the new, more efficient sub weapons, bam.
Oh brilliant
+5
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
That's what I thought the rumored Tatum/Pratt GB movie was going to be, an action film, like a (hopefully) better version of RIPD. You pull a reverse Jump Street and make a comedy movie an action movie, which allows greater distance from the original and more creativity.
I think guys can rely on the hyper-action-star stereotype crystallized by hordes of generations of movie supermen for a nice comedic deconstruction, but women have more difficulty drawing from that well because the female action star stereotype is much less developed. They have to prove themselves and make fun of themselves at the same time, which is counterproductive. That's why guys steal the scenes in Spy and Ghostbusters, because you know exactly what they're parodying.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
People are finally saying no with their wallets to remakes and sequels and bad movies. It's been in the making for a while, but it's finally showing up this year.
A lot of smaller budget movies are doing well, Lights Out, Purge 3, Conjuring 2 made 300 million (!), Blake Lively Shark movie.
People want to go to the movies, they just don't like what's being put in front of them just because it's a big budget movie. No one wanted Tarzan, or Ghostbuster remake, even BFG seemed severely out of place.
Hi, hello, my movie nemesis.
I did want a Ghostbuster's remake. And I was super pleased with what that team developed.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
We all know post-1989, when there's something strange in your neighborhood you call He-Man, not another Ghostbusters movie.
Posts
"Columbo is an awful show because it teaches audiences that the entire human population is made up of murderers."
Unless youve spent nearly as much time actually watching them as I have, I find your opinion on them invalid.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
@Jibba
I'm late to the party here, but my two cents: Erin Gilbert is a legitimate scientist who is passionate about her work and who just made a major discovery. But instead of being acclaimed, she was being called a fraud to her face by a man who earlier called her a fraud and laughed her off on national television. Now that would get under anyone's skin - but add to that the fact she was bullied as a child because of her belief in ghosts, and got fired from Columbia moments before getting tenure because of her belief in ghosts. The taunting by Heiss was the proverbial straw that broke her.
Just because the Doofus Husband trope exists doesnt mean sexism in Hollywood is not there.
It just means Hollywood and human nature is awful in yet another way.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
He's a doofus model trope. He's a failed actor who skates by in life via good looks alone so he never has to learn the consequences if his actions.
Did anyone watch zoolander and complain that zoolander was sexist against men because the men were either stupid or evil?
I saw the movie and it was OK. It felt like they took a lot of inspiration from 30 Rock. It's this exaggerated world where there's already lots of weird things going on but everyone treats it like it's normal. Like how the first joke was an offhand mention about the haunted house having an anti-Irish fence. And Hemsworth's character is basically Jon Hamm's character on 30 Rock. But it never really gets as clever as 30 Rock or Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.
My oppression is worse than yours!
I'm not an expert on modern feminism but from my understanding is that gender roles often demean and constrain both genders. For instance, stereotype is the women are emotional and man are logical, for women this means their judgement is often called into question for men this means that crying in public would make you look weak / mentally unstable.
The MRA stuff you see on the internet is weird because if anything, these are the people that should be working with feminists to remove harmful gender stereotypes and roles. Instead we have a lot of straw man MRA and feminists yelling at each other.
Anyway, I actually think this is super off topic for this movie. Maybe I'm being dense about it, but I like to think I have a critical eye to subtext in film and I think you have to do some mental gymnastics to come up with instances where this movie portrays the entire male gender in a negative light. I mean Kevin (Hemsworth's character) is an idiot, but the Ghostbusters never imply that he is an idiot because of his gender or that he somehow represents all of men. If anything they are shocked by how incredibly dumb he is. The villain in the movie is described by critics as being a straw man MRA for the girls to take down, but he is a misanthrope, who just hates humanity and doesn't show any preference to men or women. Hell, I'd argue that the only characters he identifies with are the Ghostbusters,
I mean they do shoot a monster in the dick, but everyone knows that shooting someone in the dick is the essence of comedy.
The entire scene was purely about character reveal. You could remove it from the script entirely, and it wouldn't change the overall structure.
If you want to know why a scene that doesn't change the story structure is still in the script, the answer is, "Because Bill Murray."
Mrs. Mackenzier was very happy that Leslie Jones' character much more level than she was portrayed in the trailers, and Kate McKinnon was a joy in almost every scene. However, we both found McCarthy and Wiig so utterly bland in this. They literally could have been replaced by almost any other pair of actors in Hollywood with similar results.
The pacing also felt kind of off, great swaths of filler and then MAJOR CHARACTER POINT dropped out of nowhere. Really seemed like there were a number of transitions that jumped over supporting plot points for later reveals, like Kevin
Ultimately, it was fine; not high cinema at its finest but undeserving of the vitriol and bile it is targeted with - a summer popcorn flick of minimal expectations, that is worth a watch but probably not a revisit. And it definitely isn't worthy of the furor it raised... for (capital F) Feminists and "MRA's" to choose to clash over this film, I think they could have picked more strategic battlegrounds.
EDIT: That aside, I'm curious what they'll do with the sequel if it gets greenlit. Stronger writing, tighter editing, maybe lose Feig.
FFRK: 9rRG
There was actually a scene in a trailer or vignette I saw on YouTube that made this make sense.
Obviously it got cut for length, and I wish it hadn't because without it the story does stumble a bit.
They really needed to explain why the bad guy was so powerful. Did he make a deal with Zuul? Maybe that is saved for the sequel.
Same way that Ivo Shandor designed building with NASA technology many decades before NASA ever existed.
Because science.
No one questions how the Ghostbusters come up with technology for actually capturing and trapping Ghosts, they just accept the fact that science is awesome.
Is Zuul the badguy in new Ghostbusters?
In the original, Zuul was the dog, Gozer was the actual villain.
It was the obvious next step in the use of his crowd control powers, and while it would've absolutely killed the pacing and been completely out of place in the actual movie, it made for a fun credit's sequence.
For example, in the original there's a sight gag near the beginning where a student is getting electric shocks and starts getting the psychic card test questions right. Venkman puts the card down quickly but doesn't otherwise comment on it other than to lie and say it was wrong. If you only listen or don't watch closely you might not even know there was a gag there.
Compare that to the gag where Kevin rubs his eyes through his glasses. They let everyone cast sideways glances at each other but then should have left it at that. It would have been an amusing running gag if it happened a couple more times. We don't need them to ask why there is no glass unless it's a setup for an even bigger punchline, but saying it was because he didn't like cleaning them isn't any new or interesting about his character.
The first time they turn on the proton packs no one says they are incredibly dangerous; instead Egon tries to back as far away as he can in a tiny elevator. They show instead of tell and the physical comedy sells the joke. If they did that in this one Abby would have to ask Erin why she was trying to hide, she would deny that she's scared, there'd be some other banter and the joke would be stepped on. Less is more.
I'm not sure if it's the writing, directing or if comedic tastes have changed in 30 years, but there aren't enough times like Patty's one-liner in the room of mannequins where they have confidence in the joke and let it stand without trying to explain it to death.
no no it ABSOLUTELY hasn't
This so much. I haven't been able to articulate it really, but this is exactly how I feel about comedies in general lately. It really seems like comedies in general have been moving this direction for the last 30 years. There seems to be no place for subtlety anymore.
Yes it has, Speaking to a number of advertising agencies just this morning, compared to only 5 years ago has seen a significant reduction in a particular target of advertising as mentioned as quite simply it doesn't sell like it used to anymore and has left to reserve it to internet advertising only now. In the UK they are trying to curtail sexualised advertising online too as to avoid children from viewing inappropriate content.
Look at a few years back and every piece of advertising aimed towards young men from Television to print media and online was nothing but sexualised glamour.
Anyhow The Ghostbusters movie tie in game became such a flop the company has gone bust. Rumours saying they only spent 8 months on developing the title.
I still see commercials like that all day every day when I'm at the gym.
They're still absolutely happening and there's a lot of them especially during sports. A good 90% of the commercials for men's products have some random sexy women just wander in to put her hand on the guy's shoulder once he has The Product or have her stare longingly at him. Of course, she's always half his age to boot.
The writing for the opening cinematic of the game made me physically cringe. So bad.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Again not to get too off topic, I can see where you are coming from and yes while it's improved (and trust me its improved dramatically from what we were seeing only a few years ago) there are still lots of improvements that need to be made and go further.
Btw does anyone know what the current numbers for how the film is doing now its been out in most markets? I keep seeing conflicting reports from Ok/pretty well to tanking.
Also sorta related to Ghostbusters 2016 impact with having gender reversed roles, there seems to be rumours of other 80s franchises being penned, im not quite sure that Hollywood are taking all the right lessons with this but baby steps and all can only be a good thing.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A lot of smaller budget movies are doing well, Lights Out, Purge 3, Conjuring 2 made 300 million (!), Blake Lively Shark movie.
People want to go to the movies, they just don't like what's being put in front of them just because it's a big budget movie. No one wanted Tarzan, or Ghostbuster remake, even BFG seemed severely out of place.
There's something to be said about forcing the gang to make due with their Proton packs--their body language betraying their concerns about walking around with nuclear accelerators on their backs--and fight off ghosts like that, versus giving the gang proton packs, anti-ghost grenades, ghost power gloves, ghost pistols, etc., and a slow-motion action movie montage.
The second one makes for a much better action movie. The first one is for a much better comedy.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Hi, hello, my movie nemesis.
I did want a Ghostbuster's remake. And I was super pleased with what that team developed.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!