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.

I’m interested to see what others make of it for sure.

What I hear about the new Ghostbusters film isn't too promising. They seem to want too much (get the old ones via the use of old people, get the young ones by use of young people and end up with just a ton of people. A lot of bad humour seems to be at play, ie the sort nowadays where everything is spelled out and explained and exused for right after somebody makes a joke). But let's see.

I very much agree with what you said about Ghostbusters 2016, how everybody tried to be the funny one. Surely that must be some sort of SNL thing, right? They all looked like comedians trying to "get their gak in" all the time. Telling people to be more low-key, playing it straight and do quick, witty jokes instead of lingering and doing reaction shots and so on.

The Lost City

This has Sandra Bullock, Channing Tatum, Brad Pitt, and Daniel Ratcliff (SP for all of them) doing their best at a modern day Romancing the Stone bit. It isn't bad, but it isn't good either, it is serviceable but forgettable.

The movie poster featured Randy the Goat, but she does not get nearly enough screen time to be on the poster or in the trailer. Big downer on that.

Despite my low-opinion, I do hope this movie is wildly successful! We need Hollywood to branch back into the Action/Comedy/Romance genre with decent star power and low-to-mid-range budgets again.

 Sigur wrote:
What I hear about the new Ghostbusters film isn't too promising. They seem to want too much (get the old ones via the use of old people, get the young ones by use of young people and end up with just a ton of people. A lot of bad humour seems to be at play, ie the sort nowadays where everything is spelled out and explained and exused for right after somebody makes a joke). But let's see.

I very much agree with what you said about Ghostbusters 2016, how everybody tried to be the funny one. Surely that must be some sort of SNL thing, right? They all looked like comedians trying to "get their gak in" all the time. Telling people to be more low-key, playing it straight and do quick, witty jokes instead of lingering and doing reaction shots and so on.

I’m closer to the audience opinion on RT than the critics.

What’s there is ultimately a very fun film. We get lore development and character development. It’s just a bit uneven. I have ideas on how I might’ve rejigged things without overly changing the story. Whilst frustratingly close to genuine brilliance, there’s still plenty to genuinely enjoy.

2016 was a comedy with a Ghostbusters emblem. And the comedy itself is…fine. Not revolutionary. Not necessarily original. And like pretty much all comedy, something best left to the individual to judge, because it’s such a subjective thing. I mean, some folk don’t like Airplane! and someone is paying Adam Sandler’s salary. But it was a waste of the franchise’s trappings overall.

Because whilst light hearted, I think I’d struggle to call Ghostbusters comedy films. They’re quippy, and Venkman in particular refuses to take anything especially seriously, that’s true. But they’re primarily films about the supernatural. And bloody good ones at that.

Post Frozen Empire, I could go for more. Films would be ideal, but with certain things shown off in the film, I could also go a limited or ongoing live action tv series. And that comes from the effort put into expanding the overall situation and lore without just pulling stuff out the ether for the sake of it. The film, whilst wonky, was clearly made with genuine love and affection, and an eye to leaving options open.

Maybe not MCU/Star Wars/DCEU new thing every five minutes. But more Kongzillaverse, with various films and spin-offs as and when someone has a good enough idea.

Does Ghostbusters really need "lore" and the development there of?

Perhaps more movies or Franchise should be "Lore"-less?

Kind of yes, kind of no.

GB1 and 2 had external factors causing the supernatural activity. Afterlife and 2016 followed that formula in their own ways.

But Frozen Empire kind of…doesn’t. Which is a departure for the franchise, and one that has opened it up to further stories. The lore expansion helps with that, as is the explanation behind it.

Lore is just story.

If anything good series of films (or series of anything) have good lore to them even if that lore is never presented. It helps to underpin how that fantasy world works and functions. It establishes the "rules" for the setting that even if they aren't explained to the viewer/reader; at least structures what they see through the setting.

A really well developed lore can even let you seed parts of future stories and events into earlier parts. We've all read books where the author started with 1 and branched out over time and suddenly there's things like a major crime group in a major city that the first books were set in, but which we never heard of until quite far into the series because it got added in. Meanwhile there's others where the lore was worked out first and when that element comes ot the fore you realise that it was hinted at, spoken of and just part of the background earlier.



So yeah most things that want to do well with story telling do benefit having a lore. It just helps everything work.

Now granted things that are one or two off like Ghostbusters can end up a bit wonky because they were more telling a story with characters than establishing a whole world with rules and structure; but it can still be done.

 Easy E wrote:
Does Ghostbusters really need "lore" and the development there of?

Perhaps more movies or Franchise should be "Lore"-less?

The first movie would lose a lot of its color and charm without Evo Shandor, the “Rectification of the Vukdronaii” speech, or the prison blueprint scene. The Patton Oswalt scene in the new film gives a similar flavor, although not quite as well. I’d put it on par with the lore scenes in Ghostbusters 2, though. That’s also the kind of weirdness that brings Dan Akroyd to life, so without it you’d have a film with two dead-inside Bill Murray types.

I disagree that Lore is Story. They are two very different things.

In a story, things happen for the sake of the story. Now, we get things happening for the sake of "the lore". This is not a positive as it often gets in the way of the story and is just filler. However, if you don't spell it all out in "lore" the nerds all moan about it it not being telegraphed to them!

Star Wars is exhibit A for this. The original movie explained exactly what it needed in order to get from Point A to Point B. There was no lore.

Yet, here we are a couple generations later, and "Lore" has taken over Star Wars to the point that whole series/movies are made just to fill in "the lore" instead of to tell a story.


Edit: @Bob- Yeah, exposition isn't really Lore either. Exposition still serves to move the story forward. Lore serves to constraint the story.

 Easy E wrote:
I disagree that Lore is Story. They are two very different things.

In a story, things happen for the sake of the story. Now, we get things happening for the sake of "the lore". This is not a positive as it often gets in the way of the story and is just filler. However, if you don't spell it all out in "lore" the nerds all moan about it it not being telegraphed to them!

Star Wars is exhibit A for this. The original movie explained exactly what it needed in order to get from Point A to Point B. There was no lore.

Yet, here we are a couple generations later, and "Lore" has taken over Star Wars to the point that whole series/movies are made just to fill in "the lore" instead of to tell a story.


Edit: @Bob- Yeah, exposition isn't really Lore either. Exposition still serves to move the story forward. Lore serves to constraint the story.

Actually I think you're just comparing good and bad storytelling

The bad storytelling we have now in Starwars films isn't because there's a lore, its because it has bad writing.


Lore is just the skeleton of the story. You have a LOT of things that happen in the lore for the story; the difference is the lore sets some things in stone (or should do) which require more story if you want to change those things; or requires the story to play within those boundaries.

There's a lore in Starwars 4,5,6. We see Lightsabres deflect laser blasts. That's part of the lore within those 3 films.

Lore is just the skeleton, the ground rules, the functional elements of the setting that allows the story to be told. Good story telling makes good use of the lore to tell the story and allow things to happen because of the story whilst being faithful to a set of standards and established elements that contribute toward the story.

Don’t think the way I used lore in my post is the same as Easy E is thinking of.

In GB4, we now have haunted items. Possessed by ghosts. That’s something new to the series, distinct from putting mood slime in an item and provoking a reaction. And there’s some other New Stuff introduced, adding to and building on the classics.

This helps prevent it feeling like a retread. Yes there’s nostalgia in there - and I for one would be disappointed if there wasn’t. But there’s new. And that new is genuinely interesting, with interesting possibilities for the future.

EasyE, I’d say the opposite about the new Star Wars films. They all treaded all over the established lore to tell their stories, which made the stakes feel fake, the outcomes unearned and the characters stupid. Whether it’s grossly misrepresenting the scale of the series to changing how combat and hyperdrive work to whatever the hell ROS is, it all feels like a cheat, like someone has ignored the stakes and the obstacles the heroes need to overcome to seem clever or virtuous, and replaced it with inauthentic gibberish.

The use of lore is what makes Babylon 5, Deep Space 9 and Stargate SG1 work.

Consider that Lord of the Ring's lore is so freaking good that it didn't just underpin a trilogy but a vast amount of fantasy for decades after.

It set the groundwork and showed how having a much more complete level of world building and world setting could directly contribute to improving the quality of potential storytelling.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
EasyE, I’d say the opposite about the new Star Wars films. They all treaded all over the established lore to tell their stories, which made the stakes feel fake, the outcomes unearned and the characters stupid. Whether it’s grossly misrepresenting the scale of the series to changing how combat and hyperdrive work to whatever the hell ROS is, it all feels like a cheat, like someone has ignored the stakes and the obstacles the heroes need to overcome to seem clever or virtuous, and replaced it with inauthentic gibberish.

The use of lore is what makes Babylon 5, Deep Space 9 and Stargate SG1 work.

I love that you included SG1 with those two. It's almost criminally overlooked compared to those two but really does hold up in it's best parts to those two.

Army of the Dead

I know I’ve seen this before, and I don’t recall particularly enjoying it.

But I’m giving it another whirl. I’ve always enjoyed Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake, even though he went with fast zombies. It’s still an interesting enough movie. And a helluva lot better than the Day of the Dead remake from around the same time I got about 20 minutes into before my brain ran off all offended.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t think the way I used lore in my post is the same as Easy E is thinking of.

In GB4, we now have haunted items. Possessed by ghosts. That’s something new to the series, distinct from putting mood slime in an item and provoking a reaction. And there’s some other New Stuff introduced, adding to and building on the classics.

This helps prevent it feeling like a retread. Yes there’s nostalgia in there - and I for one would be disappointed if there wasn’t. But there’s new. And that new is genuinely interesting, with interesting possibilities for the future.

Haunted items were first in the ghostbusters videogame in 2009 - i remember hunting them down with the PKE meter.

 Easy E wrote:
...
We need Hollywood to branch back into the Action/Comedy/Romance genre with decent star power and low-to-mid-range budgets again.

YES.

Now I remember why I didn’t enjoy Army of the Dead.

Despite having done really well with Dawn of the Dead, Zack The Hack has here decided to marry a not-very-good-heist-movie to a not-very-good-zombie-movie.

If he’d just gone with one rather than the other? It might be quite serviceable. Especially the Zombie side, as I’m very forgiving (you have to be as a fan of the genre, as it’s 99% pure, unadulterated crap). But by botching two genres at once, and constantly flipping between them? We’re reminded he didn’t have a clue or enough of an idea for both.

It’s still better than Welcome to Racoon City. But even Resident Evil did a better “Vegas Zombies”, which was still ultimately the weakest in a pretty weak, but fun, series of not very good but they’re still entertaining movies.

Also, just because you’ve cast Dave “Mr Charisma And Screen Presence” Batista? Doesn’t mean the rest of the cast get to be two dimensional.

Also also also “hey cack team of Mercs. Before the gubmint nukes it, I need you to nip into my vault to recover my cash monies. Because it’s mine. But for reasons we won’t go into or explain? I’m not gonna tell you the combination, so you’ll need a safe cracker. Because said reasons.”

Maybe there was a reason given. But this film is so dull I missed it.

Also, why did it take said gubmint six years to decide to nuke a city infected and quarantined???

One final also? How come the super zombies all run with their arms held behind their back? They look like the guys from that video set to Aha’s “Take On Me”, except nobody is having any fun, and I’m not sure they’re meant to look stupid.

Naruto running zombies?

Kind of, yeah. But with the spine upright.

It just looks awful. Also? It’s 2h 28m long. It has nothing like enough content to really justify that. 1h 28m, sure. But that extra hour is pure Snyder Self-Fluffing.

Stan Helsing

Possibly part of the Scary Movie franchise? But utterly devoid of wit, charm and intelligence.

The jokes aren’t funny. That’s right. They’ve somehow made a loose string of sight and knob gags Not Funny. It’s just ‘Member Berries but for horror films. But rather than identifying what makes a horror icon a horror icon and sending that up? It’s just “I am seen horror, me mek joke now. Look, me am give Pinhead dart in head not pin. Freddie are am now a pimp. Me am put Willy on Leatherface mask”

And that’s just the first 13 woeful minutes.

Oh…oh wait, inevitable “heroes am do the pot”. Because that’s original and still taboo.

Give this one a wide, wide berth. No, wider than that. Bit more….smidge to the right…there you go. Mark yourself safe from this drivel.

The Blackening

Comedy Horror exploring the tropes of black characters within the genre.

Happy to say it’s more than just that. It does of course play with, send up and even embrace stereotypes negative and positive, but it’s ultimately a pretty well made bit of silly horror.

It reminds me of the better Scary Movies, but is more restrained in the comedy, as it’s not undermining the horror elements for the sake of some cheap laughs. Daft stuff, rather than stupid I think is the best way to describe it.

I paid £10 for a digital copy and don’t regret a penny of it.

watched Past Lives and The Iron Claw yesterday, since i'm trying to catch up on last year's films. both very good, although i think i prefer Past Lives, of the two. poignant and evocative story about how we change and grow as we become older, given more depth with the inclusion of immigrant experiences. all in all, one of the best films of last year that i've seen

The Iron Claw was more what i expected it to be, since i was going in already familiar with the story. no major twists or turns to it, but everyone played their roles really well, the writing was on point, and the production of the film was all really polished

both are well worth checking out!

Thanksgiving

Eli Roth brings us a Holiday Themed Slasher, kind of in the mould of Scream.

And it’s pretty good fun. Some glorious offings, some a bit tame. But so far none have been especially daft.

As a fan of the genre, this plays pretty closely to the rules. The victims tend to be pretty unlikeable, and there’s a fake out or two to try to keep us guessing. I’m most of the way through though and I reckon I know who our killer is.

It’s nothing particularly original, but it’s ticking all the boxes for me. Buckets of gore, not taking itself too seriously without descending into farce and parody.

What are our thoughts on Eli Roth? I never saw a film of his I was impressed with, I never find anything he's involved with too impressive in general. He does seem to be a nice guythough with genuine passion for genre films and well connected.

He’s alright, I guess.

A man of big and interesting ideas, but doesn’t always fully deliver which can be frustrating.

But? Turns out I’ve seen most of the movies he’s directed, without specifically trying to, and found them all comfortably entertaining.

Put it this way? If given the choice between a Shyamalan and Roth movie? It’s gonna be Roth, every single time.

I don't know. Roth is generally serviceable whereas Shyamalan is inconsistent but when he is up he is really good, which I probably rather see. Roth also can be a bit more questionable in some of his messages and is responsible for torture porn being really popular for a while.

Yeah. Maybe this wouldn't hold up in reality, but I think I'd rather watch a Shayamalan film than a Roth film, simply because how serviceable/dependable Roth is as a filmmaker and how you pretty much get what is to be expected, whereas Shayamalan (at this point) probably won't give a good film either, but some atmosphere and a bit of weirdness. And I'd rather have weirdness, even if it turns out sucking, than films from somebody of whom I know I don't like the films a whole lot. But I'm also not a huge fan of some of the genres Roth works with. Somehow I've fallen off the horror train a bit in recent years. Never been on it fully, but more so than I am now I think.


I just watched a good portion of OSS-117: With Africa with Love, which is the third film in that franchise as far as I know. Solid, silly French spy comedy, it's surprisingly alright for being the third part of a series. Leans a bit heavily on "character from before 2017 commenting on a younger man acting in an 'unmanly' fashion", but there's also some good observations on European views of Africa and visually really good homage moments to 60s-80s Bond films, including a lengthy and very blue day-for-night shot. And Jean Dujardin is doing a really good job at being a clown and/or Connery.

Dunno. I’ll still take Roth.

He’s not trying to be clever, just broadly competent. Hostel was quite something when it first came out, and Hostel 2 did more world building.

But they are singularly unpleasant movies to watch. Which is kind of the point.

It limits their appeal in terms of widest possible audience, sure. But I defy anyone to say they’re not well made. The plots, such as they are, hold together well enough. But Shyamalan? He’s got one trick. And that’s his infamous twist.

Trouble is? That’s always gonna be a One and Done. Sure, you might want to go back and give each movie a rewatch, see what hints were crafted in. But once you know what the twist is? The films are entirely mediocre at best. And when you know there’s one coming, because that’s all he does? You spend less time watching the movie than you do trying to spot the twist.

Yeah, the twist stuff trapped him. I mean I'll still happily watch good ones like Signs or The Village. And I might give the bad ones a watch just for the giggles.