Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I've watched Ghostbusters probably half a dozen times I was born in 1993 so I have no reason to be nostalgic towards it (and am not) it seriously holds up its got funny lines, fun characters, a cool premise, easy to follow story, etc it's almost a perfect movie. The only aspect that maybe isn't super great is some of the effects look a little dated or unconvincing but I can easily forgive it because so many other elements work so well, plus it's like 30 years old so I don't expect it's effects to necessarily to age perfectly and I see GB as comedy first and foremost so having pretty effects isn't my first priority. Also I'm tired of people throwing the nostalgia line (it's overused and lazy observation) around sure sometimes it's applicable but a lot of times these remade properties are coming from works of art that are genuinely good and these remakes often fall way short of that (there are exceptions of course 3:10 to Yuma is great same with The Departed, etc).

I didn't say it wasn't good, only that most people cling to it because of nostalgia. Also, noting the value of nostalgia isn't lazy; it's very much a real phenomenon that studios, among other people/groups, know how to mine for profit. I mean, there was a guy in the Ghostbusters reboot thread that claimed it's the best action comedy from the 80s and arguably one of the greatest films of all time. That's just laughable.

Yeah that guy you're talking about is rather hyperbolic. My main concern about the nostalgia thing, was it feels a bit like an attack on the things I enjoy as I see it as "you only like this because of rose tinted glasses, it's nowhere near a good as you think it is (not saying you're that person it's

just how I feel when I see that word thrown about)" when no, that's not how I feel I really thought that piece of work was well made in fact I just consumed it recently and I still thoroughly enjoy it. While I agree it isn't always a baseless accusation like your example about studios using older

well known and liked IP for exploitative purposes is legitimate criticism or somebody has fond memories of liking this 80's hair metal band in their mid-teens and they go back to listen to a couple albums only to find it to be embarrassing schlock that does not hold up at all. My problem

with people throwing around the word "nostalgia" is to basically tell me the things I like are overrated (another overused term which basically boils down to "that this thing that people like, shouldn't be liked so much") and that I have such piss poor, pedestrian tastes and that only they, an

official arbiter of fine art can discern what makes for quality entertainment, to be smug and obnoxious. If someone is going to criticize something because of nostalgia I expect them to follow up with a more in depth reason why they don't think whatever property is as great as people

remember, otherwise I feel their opinion is not informative enough to be worthwhile.

I agree with everything you've said. Unfortunately I've seen too many people my age who say pretty much the joke below.



I honestly cannot stand My Little Pony. I think it's a show for children. That being said, I have several wargaming friends who dig it, and I just think "Hey, I don't like it, but carry on". It's the same way I feel about Warmachine and X-Wing and why I have such a problem with people who hate on 40k.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Maybe fans aren't pissed people are remaking movies, they're pissed people are remaking them with no care of how it influences or tarnishes the original. That's why I'm normally not a huge fan of covers, I think artist's should produce new songs instead of remaking them. Very few covers stand up to or surpass the original.

I'm not having a go at you personally, because I've seen this sentiment many times before, and it always confuses me.

How does a poor remake or cover or even sequel "tarnish" the original? The existence of Robocop 3 and the recent remake does not make the '87 original any less awesome.

All Weird Al covers are at least 17% better than the original.

The original RoboCop movie is no worse for the sequels or remake being terrible - but those sequels and remakes definitely hurt the brand. It will be a long time, if ever, before someone decides to put money behind another shot at RoboCop given the most recent take was a flop. It's a lot to overcome. Just think of any article about a hypothetical new movie: "The 2014 remake was widely panned by critics and fans alike ..." will be a line in virtually every piece.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


There hasn't been a theatrical Ghostbusters since 1989, and it wasn't that good. The half-way decent animated show went off the air in 1991 and the horrible Extreme Ghostbusters lasted one season in the late 90s. There's also been various comics/mangas based on the franchise, too, but that's it. It isn't a fandom or franchise that's saturated popular culture in years.

Yeah, this is what I meant when I said GB hasn't existed really since for ~25 years (since 1989, to be exact), because.....it hasn't. Like SPJ said, there were a couple generally disliked saturday morning cartoons and a mediocre video game a couple years ago, two movies from the 80s, and......that's about it. Unless you count comics and manga, I guess.

TBH, I didn't even know the original movie had anyone that cared about it at all, until the 2016 GB trailer came out.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
TBH, I didn't even know the original movie had anyone that cared about it at all, until the 2016 GB trailer came out.

Right - because you haven't paid attention. You aren't a fan, we get it. Doesn't change the fact that GB fandom has been around this whole time, that GB never ceased to exist, that the IP has survived in comics, video games, and collectibles, etc etc etc.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
TBH, I didn't even know the original movie had anyone that cared about it at all, until the 2016 GB trailer came out.

Right - because you haven't paid attention. You aren't a fan, we get it. Doesn't change the fact that GB fandom has been around this whole time, that GB never ceased to exist, that the IP has survived in comics, video games, and collectibles, etc etc etc.

Don't forget:




and

 kronk wrote:
All Weird Al covers are at least 17% better than the original.

Well, I consider those more originals than covers. Weird Al just takes the song, but then puts an awesome spin on it. Even his Polka Medley I'd call more compilations than covers

I think the major reason many remakes/sequels fail is because they tend to lack the soul, or miss the point of the original. That and rose tinted glasses.


Take The Thing, it's one of my favourite movies of all time. Then we have The Thing same name premake.

I don't mind the second one, but I feel the first made such an impact because of the physical effects, they were brilliant. The second is entirely CGI, so it just ends up feeling like a poor mans copy.

In a similar vein, Swamp Thing was brilliant, but Swamp Thing 2 was horrid!

 feeder wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Maybe fans aren't pissed people are remaking movies, they're pissed people are remaking them with no care of how it influences or tarnishes the original. That's why I'm normally not a huge fan of covers, I think artist's should produce new songs instead of remaking them. Very few covers stand up to or surpass the original.

I'm not having a go at you personally, because I've seen this sentiment many times before, and it always confuses me.

How does a poor remake or cover or even sequel "tarnish" the original? The existence of Robocop 3 and the recent remake does not make the '87 original any less awesome.

I'm going to quote Manchu's response as it's basically what I'd say.

The original RoboCop movie is no worse for the sequels or remake being terrible - but those sequels and remakes definitely hurt the brand. It will be a long time, if ever, before someone decides to put money behind another shot at RoboCop given the most recent take was a flop. It's a lot to overcome. Just think of any article about a hypothetical new movie: "The 2014 remake was widely panned by critics and fans alike ..." will be a line in virtually every piece.

Look at the Terminator series. Genisys really hurt the brand, and killed a lot of people's interest to do a sixth film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Genisys

 welshhoppo wrote:
I don't mind the second one, but I feel the first made such an impact because of the physical effects, they were brilliant. The second is entirely CGI, so it just ends up feeling like a poor mans copy.

IIRC they initially did a ton of it with practical effects but were forced to reshoot for CGI effects to be added, which is the cut we got. The prequel is such a perfect fan homage to John Carpenter's movie, except that studio forced the GCI effects and the reshot ending.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Maybe fans aren't pissed people are remaking movies, they're pissed people are remaking them with no care of how it influences or tarnishes the original. That's why I'm normally not a huge fan of covers, I think artist's should produce new songs instead of remaking them. Very few covers stand up to or surpass the original.

I'm not having a go at you personally, because I've seen this sentiment many times before, and it always confuses me.

How does a poor remake or cover or even sequel "tarnish" the original? The existence of Robocop 3 and the recent remake does not make the '87 original any less awesome.

I'm going to quote Manchu's response as it's basically what I'd say.

The original RoboCop movie is no worse for the sequels or remake being terrible - but those sequels and remakes definitely hurt the brand. It will be a long time, if ever, before someone decides to put money behind another shot at RoboCop given the most recent take was a flop. It's a lot to overcome. Just think of any article about a hypothetical new movie: "The 2014 remake was widely panned by critics and fans alike ..." will be a line in virtually every piece.

Look at the Terminator series. Genisys really hurt the brand, and killed a lot of people's interest to do a sixth film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Genisys

I understand that. Poor sequels can kill a brand. But that doesn't explain how the original is diminished.

Just because the Rolling Stones are bunch of creaking old geriatrics on tour right now doesn't mean they weren't once the best and most exciting band on the planet.

 feeder wrote:
I understand that. Poor sequels can kill a brand. But that doesn't explain how the original is diminished.

Just because the Rolling Stones are bunch of creaking old geriatrics on tour right now doesn't mean they weren't once the best and most exciting band on the planet.

I think due to both the time and money aspect, I think it's a lot easier to pass off a book or an album as a miss than a movie is. If a movie bombs, it's generally more devastating than a book or an album bombing.

The thing about shiny and new is that it isn't shiny and new anymore if it's reused. We like fresh characters, and fresh takes on characters (Heath Ledger as the Joker). It certainly doesn't help when the remake/sequel doesn't do anything new, and is a pale imitation of the original like The Thing.

Hollywood sequels for as long as I can remember always try to go with the bigger is better approach to sequels. I think the best part of Skyfall was stripping everything down at the end instead of relying on crazier gadgets and special effects. The villain count of super hero movies tends to increase in movies, often to the detriment of the film (Spiderman 3, Batman and Robin).

 Manchu wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
TBH, I didn't even know the original movie had anyone that cared about it at all, until the 2016 GB trailer came out.

Right - because you haven't paid attention. You aren't a fan, we get it. Doesn't change the fact that GB fandom has been around this whole time, that GB never ceased to exist, that the IP has survived in comics, video games, and collectibles, etc etc etc.

My elementary school-age son went as a Ghostbuster one year for Halloween. He played Ghostbusters: The Video Game to its end, and has seen both movies (except a few choice scenes).

This was through *zero* nudging from me. He came across the Real Ghostbusters cartoon on his own and got into it on his own. It's a good concept that still works and attracts people. *shrug*

 feeder wrote:

I understand that. Poor sequels can kill a brand. But that doesn't explain how the original is diminished.

Just because the Rolling Stones are bunch of creaking old geriatrics on tour right now doesn't mean they weren't once the best and most exciting band on the planet.

Poor sequels can hurt an original work in a number of ways. Look at Mass Effect for example. The ending to game #3 was... well, lets say "controversial" is putting it mildly. It impacts enjoyment and appreciation of games #1 and 2 whenyou replay them and know its all heading to..."that", and that unseen events which are revealed in 3 are supposedly occurring during games 1 and 2 but dont directly interact with or you find elements that clearly were leading up to a different concept than what was executed, thus diminishing the originals.

Likewise with Star Wars, you look at the Prequels and then the suspension of disbelief that sustained the original trilogy is harder to maintain when you rewatch those originals when considered part of the larger story given the poor showing of the prequels.

Especially considering Hayden Christensen's face was put in RotJ!

 Manchu wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I don't mind the second one, but I feel the first made such an impact because of the physical effects, they were brilliant. The second is entirely CGI, so it just ends up feeling like a poor mans copy.

IIRC they initially did a ton of it with practical effects but were forced to reshoot for CGI effects to be added, which is the cut we got. The prequel is such a perfect fan homage to John Carpenter's movie, except that studio forced the GCI effects and the reshot ending.

didn't know that. But they get a gold star for trying.

There is also a fine line between a remake homage, and a remake ripoff too. Some movies do seem to go over the edge and they make themselves seem kind of pointless.

Check out Harbinger Down (with Lance Henricksen) if you want to see practical effects by the same team. Thing (2011) was absolutely a homage. I remember thinking, is that same XYZ from the first film? and then learning that everything was meticulously recreated. A real labor of love!

 Manchu wrote:
Especially considering Hayden Christensen's face was put in RotJ!

oh christ...yeah forgot about that


But even stuff like the existence of C3P0 and R2D have gotten taken to rather absurd heights (and why Vader never recognized them...)

 welshhoppo wrote:
I think the major reason many remakes/sequels fail is because they tend to lack the soul, or miss the point of the original. That and rose tinted glasses.

Take The Thing, it's one of my favourite movies of all time. Then we have The Thing same name premake.

I don't mind the second one, but I feel the first made such an impact because of the physical effects, they were brilliant. The second is entirely CGI, so it just ends up feeling like a poor mans copy.

Eye of the beholder

I didn't enjoy the b/w The Thing at all Nope not at all.

but the J Carpenter version was for me glorious - watched it in my early teens and found it actually scary, with wonderful effects, brilliant tension and great sense of paranoia - apparently it was panned on release but for me thats one of a thousand similar reasons to ignore film crictics

The newest Thing film I enjoyed nearly as much as the first - because it related so well and so much trouble had been taken to link in wiht the JC film, how people die, where things happened - the works

Aliens and Predator films tend to provoke different reactions in people.

Alien - loved it - for similar reasons to TheThing and watched it about the same time.
Aliens - fantastic film , nothing like the original but great film in its own right - evolving from the first.
Aliens 3- less happy - but ok
Aliens 4 - hmm had some good bits but poor compared to the first two.
Predator - Awesome - Like Aliens - huge inlfuence on our roleplaying - from scenarios to dialogue
Predator 2 - not as good but enjoyable and we used lots of stuff from it!
AVP - not bad, some good stuff (comic is for me a better story) but enjoyable
AVP2 - better - enjoyed that a lot - didn;t cop out on the brutality of the Aliens!

Then there is Batman

which for me starts with Tim Burtons masterpiece - for me nothing so far holds a candle to this, his second film was a mess, Michelle Pfeiffer - hell yeah , the Penguin - god no Batman 3 and 4 declinned rapdily in quality.....
Then Nolan was brought in - the first film was tolerable - hugely overlong and a bad Bruce Wayne if an adequate Batman. great Scarecrow - pathetic and stupid Ras A Ghul - both in concept and execution.
The second film had one good thing - the Joker- althougth his infalliable mary sue pre-knowledge of the plot got tiresome quickly. The rest of the film was a increasingly weakly ploted series of action sequences.
Didn't bother with the Third.
Latest incarnation of Batman in Bat vs Sups was great - angry older and with a nice level of insanity, overshadowed a bit by fantastic Wonder Woman but good, pity about Loopy Lex ruining the film :(

Your opinion may differ but you can love both new and old films and whether they "suck" or not (and why they do) is always going to be debatable.

I was talking about the JC Thing, not the Thing from another World. I've never seen the first first one. Nor do I intend to. I'm not fussed on 50s films.


The biggest problem with Alien3 is the first five minutes. It's almost like "Remember those characters you loved from the previous film. Including that one which was the whole reason for that epic scene at the end of aliens? Yeah, they are all dead."

 feeder wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Maybe fans aren't pissed people are remaking movies, they're pissed people are remaking them with no care of how it influences or tarnishes the original. That's why I'm normally not a huge fan of covers, I think artist's should produce new songs instead of remaking them. Very few covers stand up to or surpass the original.

I'm not having a go at you personally, because I've seen this sentiment many times before, and it always confuses me.

How does a poor remake or cover or even sequel "tarnish" the original? The existence of Robocop 3 and the recent remake does not make the '87 original any less awesome.

Generally I agree with this while remakes do sometimes bother me, the thing is I can go back to the originals if I feel they mishandled it when it got the reboot.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I was talking about the JC Thing, not the Thing from another World. I've never seen the first first one. Nor do I intend to. I'm not fussed on 50s films.
The biggest problem with Alien3 is the first five minutes. It's almost like "Remember those characters you loved from the previous film. Including that one which was the whole reason for that epic scene at the end of aliens? Yeah, they are all dead."

I have the same issue with the film, the film on itself is a good movie, but i was so emotionally invested in the characters from Aliens, so when i went to the movie to see alien 3, the first 5 minutes just killed the movie for me, the rest of the movie i was angry


The thing about ghostbusters was the chemistry and the jokes
IMHO redlettermedia did a good review

 kronk wrote:
In a similar vein, Swamp Thing was brilliant, but Swamp Thing 2 was horrid!

I know why you like the first one

problem with remakes and reboots is they are a turkey shoot to began with, look at G.I.Joe the original was good it had a following, but then they made the movie and altered what it was all about so it didn't do so well then you look at Transformers another cartoon from the same era and yet it was altered all over heck and back and still did amazingly well, problem is how much do you remake an old movie/tv show ? with Ghost Busters they would have been better off making it a sequel of the original with some of the original cast showing up and the new characters descended from them or some of them, also mix the cast up with men and women, doing an all girl reboot to go PC is just wrong and I didn't feel the same chemistry as the original group gave us.

and then we have reboots like wild wild west and the honeymooners, don't get me wrong Will Smith and Cedric are great stars, but using them in a reboot of old shows is not a good idea, that and the honeymooners was a show that would not be aired today. neither of those movies did so great.

 Manchu wrote:
@SPJr - I think you're arguing to argue. GB has been around, as you yourself admit, outside of films or TV shows. It has been around even between the comics and games. This is how IPs survive, the fans carry the torch. Early Trek fandom is probably the foremost example. Voltron is another, lower key example. There was also a period when Star Wars fans were high and dry. GB fandom (or, again, Voltron fandom) may not be as huge as Star Wars and Star Trek but it has always carried the torch for the property.

You're entitled to your opinion but I'm not "arguing to argue." There are fans of Ghostbusters, I'm one of them, but people need to temper this feeling that fething Ghostbusters deserves to be placed on the untouchable pantheon of geekdom.

 jreilly89 wrote:
SO, what? It's okay to trash beloved movies because the fans just need to "Get with the times". Guess what? I've never seen the original Universal Pictures monster movies like the Wolf Man, but I can tell you right now I think remaking them with Tom Cruise and other aging actors is in poor form. Maybe fans aren't pissed people are remaking movies, they're pissed people are remaking them with no care of how it influences or tarnishes the original. That's why I'm normally not a huge fan of covers, I think artist's should produce new songs instead of remaking them. Very few covers stand up to or surpass the original.

You perfectly described what is wrong with fandom. There is no rational explanation for the idea that because something else exists it ruins another thing. Terminator 3 is a garbage movie but the fact that it was made doesn't make Terminator 2: Judgement Day and less awesome. Likewise, the Star Wars prequels exist and are also terrible, but when I watched them, no part of my brain said, "Well, now The Empire Strikes Back is a pile of gak because of this movie."

I think it's funny that "Ghostbusters fans are just babies", but if someone did this to Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, ANY of the other crazy popular movies/books/etc. people would be up in arms.

Sure, and those people would be equally irrational.

and talking of reboots it seems Capt. Power and the soldiers of the future will be getting a reboot, I vaguely remember the show since was in the military at the time, but something tells me its gonna bomb big time, the show barely lasted 2 seasons to begin with and is not a known name but who knows:

http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/captain-power-soldiers-future-get-tv-reboot/

@SPJr: You're arguing against a point no one ITT has made ... the GB franchise did not "effectively" cease to exist, simple as that - it has nothing to do with this red herring about geek entitlement, or whatever.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


There hasn't been a theatrical Ghostbusters since 1989, and it wasn't that good. The half-way decent animated show went off the air in 1991 and the horrible Extreme Ghostbusters lasted one season in the late 90s. There's also been various comics/mangas based on the franchise, too, but that's it. It isn't a fandom or franchise that's saturated popular culture in years.

Yeah, this is what I meant when I said GB hasn't existed really since for ~25 years (since 1989, to be exact), because.....it hasn't. Like SPJ said, there were a couple generally disliked saturday morning cartoons and a mediocre video game a couple years ago, two movies from the 80s, and......that's about it. Unless you count comics and manga, I guess.

TBH, I didn't even know the original movie had anyone that cared about it at all, until the 2016 GB trailer came out.

The cartoon, The Real Ghostbusters, was highly regarded, not generally disliked. I hear the second cartoon, X-treme Ghostbusters?, was also generally liked, although I had aged out of its demographic by then. And Ghostbusters fans have been present at conventions since forever.