|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 28, 2019 13:13:44 GMT -5
Ironically the original GB was never even about alpha male masculinity. The team consisted of a conman who had a womanising facade to cover his genuinely sweet nature, a nerdy socially awkward but brilliant scientist, a scholarly devotee of the paranormal who had an endearing childlike love of his field of study, and a grounded voice of reason who simply wanted a steady job. The film also had two solid female characters, Janine and Dana, who were a million times better than the four shitty characters Sony clumsily created in the reboot as examples of female empowerment.
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Crow T. Robot
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 40,706
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Jan 28, 2019 14:55:47 GMT -5
I'm going to, right now, come up with a semi-serviceable plot: It's been 30 years since last big battle with the OG Ghostbusters. In the intervening time, they have been quietly busting ghosts after agreeing with officials that keeping these things in check and not causing mass panic is for the best. Their last group bust was in 1991 when they defeated Shandor...but this would be their undoing. As it turns out Shandor was keeping Gozer at bay in his efforts to take Gozers place as a god. Thou unable to directly return to our world due to the portal collapsing, Gozar released a vile demon (insert name) while dealing with this new threat it took all their effort...and Egon. Fast forward to the present day, almost 30 years have gone by without the Ghostbusters. 4 intrepid young adults and avid ghost hunters host their own youtube show. Haunted hotels, asylums forests, but, They never get much more than some spooky sounds maybe a falling objects. (We'd learn about the 4 leads here) One the leads laments, wanting real action. During a live stream, one anonymous person tips the stream with the message [Seek Gozer]. This leads the group to getting, oddly, no hits other than a few conspiracy sites and ghostbuster fan sites. One of the other lead 4 laughs saying that they were just a publicity stunt. Another group member (the weird one trope) insists it happened and claims he knows someone who knows the whereabouts of one of the original Busters, Winston Zeddemore. Sure enough, he's real. The group is surprised and mentions the name Gozer to which Winston angrily demands they leave, they start to in a dejected fashion when he stops them an apologizes. This is where we get the telling of the backstory from Winston and why the OG Busters split ways. To shorten this a little; The group learns about where the other Busters are and decides they should revisit their old stomping grounds, Unbeknownst to them Gozer has been leaking more vile spirits waiting to finish off the rest of Busters who banished it. This leads to the group getting chased out of (one of the original locations). With Winston, not home they find plucky Ray Stantz. They recap and Ray being Ray is overly enthused to show them the old firehouse. He smirks and asks them if they reallywanna bust. We get a short montage of them learning the old gear and new gear Ray has been working on in the hopes that one day the old group might get together again. He fills in for most of the middle of the film. The finale would be Gozer finally getting free. Ray remarks they need more people and he knows just who. He convinces Winston with a speech about knowing he wants to kick his ass for Egon. They go to Peters home, The moment he opens the door to see 4 new Busters, Winston and Ray in full gear with Ray having a big doofy smile he blankly, slowly, closes the door. He tries again, This time telling Peter there could be money maybe women, Peter being peter says "Only because I really enjoy being bothers this early in the morning" he turns to the kids and give them some comedic advice "hey little heads up...at some point Gozer might ask if your a god, Say yes, Trust me." The final battle is the Busters taking on Gozer and (if possible) during this Louis shows up saying "I heard you guys might need some help" The film would end with Ray saying how fun this was and that he'd love to help the Newly christened Ghostbusters in the future. Peter simply remarks he's going home to have some OJ..maybe a waffle if there's time. Winston says he's happily retired but wishes them well. We close out on the 4 new Ghostbusters and Ray in the Ecto 1 driving away with a tease shot of the truck opening and slimer peaking out with a playful wink. Is it great? no, but I bet it's better than whatever daytime degrassi soap stuff I just read was. Not bad
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jan 28, 2019 17:59:03 GMT -5
Ironically the original GB was never even about alpha male masculinity. The team consisted of a conman who had a womanising facade to cover his genuinely sweet nature, a nerdy socially awkward but brilliant scientist, a scholarly devotee of the paranormal who had an endearing childlike love of his field of study, and a grounded voice of reason who simply wanted a steady job. The film also had two solid female characters, Janine and Dana, who were a million times better than the four shitty characters Sony clumsily created in the reboot as examples of female empowerment. Yeah, it was about a bunch of guys trying to start and run a small business... that just happen to save the world. They were never presented as alpha males or action heroes... hell one of the big jokes in the movie was them getting the big heroes welcome at teh building... and then it cutting to them almost passing out climbing up the stairs.
|
|
Shark
Hank Scorpio
The world's only Samurai Ninja Pirate
Posts: 7,045
|
Post by Shark on Jan 28, 2019 18:10:02 GMT -5
Ironically the original GB was never even about alpha male masculinity. The team consisted of a conman who had a womanising facade to cover his genuinely sweet nature, a nerdy socially awkward but brilliant scientist, a scholarly devotee of the paranormal who had an endearing childlike love of his field of study, and a grounded voice of reason who simply wanted a steady job. The film also had two solid female characters, Janine and Dana, who were a million times better than the four shitty characters Sony clumsily created in the reboot as examples of female empowerment. I had the same thought when watching the first movie the other day. Especially thinking at how unbalanced the characters were in the 2016 film. All the male characters in that movie were either idiots, assholes or some combination thereof. The women in the original movie were smart, and didn't put up with shit from the guys. Also really odd to me that the "woman power" movie really doesn't show the women being successful. They bust 1 ghost and then immediately release it and allow it to kill someone. You'd think this movie would show the women being totally competent and becoming huge successes.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 28, 2019 19:18:00 GMT -5
hell one of the big jokes in the movie was them getting the big heroes welcome at teh building... and then it cutting to them almost passing out climbing up the stairs. That may well be my favourite gag in the first movie. Also they second movie had the "Suck in the guts, guys, we're the Ghostbusters." Those movies were never afraid to poke fun of the fake that these were four schlubby, middle-aged average joes who just happen to do something heroic, not because they're the heroic types, but because they're the only ones who know how.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 19:55:28 GMT -5
Leslie Jones and Paul Feig aren't taking this well, apparently. www.dreadcentral.com/news/288280/paul-feig-supports-leslie-jones-offers-his-own-opinion-of-upcoming-ghostbusters-3/I am looking forward to this, but I also dread all things Ghostbusters now. I don't care if it was men, women, or children, that last movie wasn't great and it was an absolute embarrassing shit-storm. And as far as James Rolfe, I honestly don't think he realized how some would take that video. He seems completely apolitical and probably just wanted to put that video out there so everyone would stop asking him about it. He doesn't even mention the "THEY'RE ALL WOMEN!" thing once in the video. The real pathetic part of that was how everyone went after him over it, notably Patton Oswalt. Dude's wife had just died and he decided the best thing to do with his time is to bully a grown man who yells at video games because he didn't want to watch a remake of a movie he liked. Paul Feig seem like someone with ego issue and probably still mad that people didnt think his ghostbuster movie wasnt the greatest thing of all time.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jan 28, 2019 20:17:46 GMT -5
Leslie Jones and Paul Feig aren't taking this well, apparently. www.dreadcentral.com/news/288280/paul-feig-supports-leslie-jones-offers-his-own-opinion-of-upcoming-ghostbusters-3/I am looking forward to this, but I also dread all things Ghostbusters now. I don't care if it was men, women, or children, that last movie wasn't great and it was an absolute embarrassing shit-storm. And as far as James Rolfe, I honestly don't think he realized how some would take that video. He seems completely apolitical and probably just wanted to put that video out there so everyone would stop asking him about it. He doesn't even mention the "THEY'RE ALL WOMEN!" thing once in the video. The real pathetic part of that was how everyone went after him over it, notably Patton Oswalt. Dude's wife had just died and he decided the best thing to do with his time is to bully a grown man who yells at video games because he didn't want to watch a remake of a movie he liked. Paul Feig seem like someone with ego issue and probably still mad that people didnt think his ghostbuster movie wasnt the greatest thing of all time. he absolutely is still pitching a fit about it from references he's made about the film after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 28, 2019 20:32:18 GMT -5
Leslie Jones and Paul Feig aren't taking this well, apparently. www.dreadcentral.com/news/288280/paul-feig-supports-leslie-jones-offers-his-own-opinion-of-upcoming-ghostbusters-3/I am looking forward to this, but I also dread all things Ghostbusters now. I don't care if it was men, women, or children, that last movie wasn't great and it was an absolute embarrassing shit-storm. And as far as James Rolfe, I honestly don't think he realized how some would take that video. He seems completely apolitical and probably just wanted to put that video out there so everyone would stop asking him about it. He doesn't even mention the "THEY'RE ALL WOMEN!" thing once in the video. The real pathetic part of that was how everyone went after him over it, notably Patton Oswalt. Dude's wife had just died and he decided the best thing to do with his time is to bully a grown man who yells at video games because he didn't want to watch a remake of a movie he liked. Paul Feig seem like someone with ego issue and probably still mad that people didnt think his ghostbuster movie wasnt the greatest thing of all time. Feig is largely the one responsible for fanning the flames of the arguments surrounding that movie. People were mostly just pissed off with it being a remake and not a sequel, with a few vocal but relatively insignificant "it sucks because they're women" cretins mixed in. Then the trailer dropped and it looked f***ing terrible, at which point he started giving said cretins the spotlight and created the "if you don't support this movie you just don't want women to succeed" straw man. No, Paul, you made a painfully bad movie, alienated a huge portion of the fan base who would've come out to see it otherwise, and plunged four talented women into a situation they didn't deserve.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,301
|
Post by Fade on Jan 29, 2019 13:42:38 GMT -5
Paul Feig seem like someone with ego issue and probably still mad that people didnt think his ghostbuster movie wasnt the greatest thing of all time. Feig is largely the one responsible for fanning the flames of the arguments surrounding that movie. People were mostly just pissed off with it being a remake and not a sequel, with a few vocal but relatively insignificant "it sucks because they're women" cretins mixed in. Then the trailer dropped and it looked f***ing terrible, at which point he started giving said cretins the spotlight and created the "if you don't support this movie you just don't want women to succeed" straw man. No, Paul, you made a painfully bad movie, alienated a huge portion of the fan base who would've come out to see it otherwise, and plunged four talented women into a situation they didn't deserve. I wish I could like this a million times. Bingo. Exactly. This is such an accurate depiction of the fiasco that occurred.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,323
|
Post by agent817 on Jan 29, 2019 15:58:17 GMT -5
I feel like I am alone here, because I actually did enjoy the 2016 film, despite its flaws.
|
|
BlackoutCreature
Grimlock
The Ultimate Popcorntunist!
Posts: 14,568
Member is Online
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Jan 29, 2019 17:33:52 GMT -5
I feel like I am alone here, because I actually did enjoy the 2016 film, despite its flaws. It was a pretty good movie, not on the level of the original but a solid enough way to kill two hours. The biggest problem with it was Feig and the studio's insistence on painting any complaints about it as the ravings of misogynistic fanboys rather then valid criticism left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 29, 2019 18:46:23 GMT -5
I feel like I am alone here, because I actually did enjoy the 2016 film, despite its flaws. It was a pretty good movie, not on the level of the original but a solid enough way to kill two hours. The biggest problem with it was Feig and the studio's insistence on painting any complaints about it as the ravings of misogynistic fanboys rather then valid criticism left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I certainly didn't think it was a good movie. It wasn't terrible, but there were some major issues with it. My biggest issue with it was at no point did any of it feel believable. Sure, it's a movie about ghosts, so that seems a silly complaint, but the original two movies had a groundedness to them. Nobody was particularly over the top, save for Rick Moranis, but you still meet people like Louis Tully in real life. In the 2016 movie, everything felt like a cartoonish parody. It has its moments. Kate McKinnon was wonderful, Chris Hemsworth was pretty hysterical, even if his character was abhorrent, and the visual effects were great. It should've made money, but it was doomed to fail because of the shitstorm Feig and Sony brought down upon it in the year leading up to its release.
|
|
BlackoutCreature
Grimlock
The Ultimate Popcorntunist!
Posts: 14,568
Member is Online
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Jan 29, 2019 19:15:16 GMT -5
It was a pretty good movie, not on the level of the original but a solid enough way to kill two hours. The biggest problem with it was Feig and the studio's insistence on painting any complaints about it as the ravings of misogynistic fanboys rather then valid criticism left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I certainly didn't think it was a good movie. It wasn't terrible, but there were some major issues with it. My biggest issue with it was at no point did any of it feel believable. Sure, it's a movie about ghosts, so that seems a silly complaint, but the original two movies had a groundedness to them. Nobody was particularly over the top, save for Rick Moranis, but you still meet people like Louis Tully in real life. In the 2016 movie, everything felt like a cartoonish parody. It has its moments. Kate McKinnon was wonderful, Chris Hemsworth was pretty hysterical, even if his character was abhorrent, and the visual effects were great. It should've made money, but it was doomed to fail because of the shitstorm Feig and Sony brought down upon it in the year leading up to its release. I felt the biggest problem with the movie itself was its reliance on wacky slapstick comedy, whereas the humor from the original movies all came from witty dialogue and character interaction. In the 1984 movie Peter getting slimed by Slimer wasn't the joke, it was the setup. The jokes were Murray, Akroyd and Ramis' reactions to the sliming. In the 2016 movie Kristen Wiig gets vomited on by a ghost and that's it, that's what's supposed to be funny, like it's a Happy Madison movie.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 29, 2019 20:49:56 GMT -5
I certainly didn't think it was a good movie. It wasn't terrible, but there were some major issues with it. My biggest issue with it was at no point did any of it feel believable. Sure, it's a movie about ghosts, so that seems a silly complaint, but the original two movies had a groundedness to them. Nobody was particularly over the top, save for Rick Moranis, but you still meet people like Louis Tully in real life. In the 2016 movie, everything felt like a cartoonish parody. It has its moments. Kate McKinnon was wonderful, Chris Hemsworth was pretty hysterical, even if his character was abhorrent, and the visual effects were great. It should've made money, but it was doomed to fail because of the shitstorm Feig and Sony brought down upon it in the year leading up to its release. I felt the biggest problem with the movie itself was its reliance on wacky slapstick comedy, whereas the humor from the original movies all came from witty dialogue and character interaction. In the 1984 movie Peter getting slimed by Slimer wasn't the joke, it was the setup. The jokes were Murray, Akroyd and Ramis' reactions to the sliming. In the 2016 movie Kristen Wiig gets vomited on by a ghost and that's it, that's what's supposed to be funny, like it's a Happy Madison movie. Well, I put that in the same category as my complaint. The tone of the movie is all over the top and wacky for the sake of being wacky. "Kristen Wiig got puked on by a ghost and it got into all her cracks! Isn't that wacky and hilarious?!"
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Jan 29, 2019 20:50:35 GMT -5
I feel like I am alone here, because I actually did enjoy the 2016 film, despite its flaws. It was a pretty good movie, not on the level of the original but a solid enough way to kill two hours. The biggest problem with it was Feig and the studio's insistence on painting any complaints about it as the ravings of misogynistic fanboys rather then valid criticism left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Yeah, I think the biggest takeaway from GB 2016 was that a lot of us got upset over the politics of a movie with shit jokes designed to sell pringles and papa john's pizza. In a way it for a moment of time encapsuled outrage culture: an event happens, A gets pissed about it, B gets pissed about the outrage, and we become further polarized.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,323
|
Post by agent817 on Jan 29, 2019 22:33:42 GMT -5
I certainly didn't think it was a good movie. It wasn't terrible, but there were some major issues with it. My biggest issue with it was at no point did any of it feel believable. Sure, it's a movie about ghosts, so that seems a silly complaint, but the original two movies had a groundedness to them. Nobody was particularly over the top, save for Rick Moranis, but you still meet people like Louis Tully in real life. In the 2016 movie, everything felt like a cartoonish parody. It has its moments. Kate McKinnon was wonderful, Chris Hemsworth was pretty hysterical, even if his character was abhorrent, and the visual effects were great. It should've made money, but it was doomed to fail because of the shitstorm Feig and Sony brought down upon it in the year leading up to its release. I felt the biggest problem with the movie itself was its reliance on wacky slapstick comedy, whereas the humor from the original movies all came from witty dialogue and character interaction. In the 1984 movie Peter getting slimed by Slimer wasn't the joke, it was the setup. The jokes were Murray, Akroyd and Ramis' reactions to the sliming. In the 2016 movie Kristen Wiig gets vomited on by a ghost and that's it, that's what's supposed to be funny, like it's a Happy Madison movie. I won't argue that some of the slapstick and that some of the jokes fell flat, but I still enjoyed it. I will gladly admit that I saw the movie four times in theaters (Yes, you read that right). I even own it on Blu Ray. What I will note is that some of the ad-libbed lines weren't that great, but I still like the movie and will watch it every now and then. It seems that it got better on repeated viewings for me.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Jan 29, 2019 22:37:37 GMT -5
It was a pretty good movie, not on the level of the original but a solid enough way to kill two hours. The biggest problem with it was Feig and the studio's insistence on painting any complaints about it as the ravings of misogynistic fanboys rather then valid criticism left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Yeah, I think the biggest takeaway from GB 2016 was that a lot of us got upset over the politics of a movie with shit jokes designed to sell pringles and papa john's pizza. In a way it for a moment of time encapsuled outrage culture: an event happens, A gets pissed about it, B gets pissed about the outrage, and we become further polarized. I think Honest Trailers nailed it with "how did a Ghostbusters movie end up the most political thing in America DURING AN ELECTION YEAR!?"
|
|
|
Post by Malibu Stacy on Jan 30, 2019 7:51:35 GMT -5
I feel like I am alone here, because I actually did enjoy the 2016 film, despite its flaws. It was a pretty good movie, not on the level of the original but a solid enough way to kill two hours. The biggest problem with it was Feig and the studio's insistence on painting any complaints about it as the ravings of misogynistic fanboys rather then valid criticism left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Pretty much. I actually ended up liking it, but skipped on seeing it in theaters. The trailers made it look terrible, and then the wolf cries of misogyny made me not want to give it a shot at all. Especially since anyone who knows me irl knows I'm all about Girl Power and positive female representations in media to an insufferable degree. It took catching part of it during a break at work to make me change my mind, and now it's one of very few movies I regret not seeing in the theater. So, yeah, that's two tickets they missed out on selling just by being pot stirrers. As far as this new movie, I'm a bit confused, why does the new report say the cast is all male when the previous say the cast was divided?
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Jan 30, 2019 18:57:11 GMT -5
What I remember from the 2016 fiasco is that after the trailer dropped, sony deleted all the youtube comments giving legit criticism and only left the idiotic misogynist complaints, making it seem like "WIMINZ R BAD" was the only thing people were complaining about.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,812
|
Post by hassanchop on Feb 20, 2019 21:32:44 GMT -5
|
|