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.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well probably will check it out in the theaters to find out if it can stand on its own.

Please don't. Go watch a good movie instead; don't help make bad movies profitable.

I repeat myself but:

A new form of cinema marketing is born.

The trailer is so ambiguous you buy a theatre ticket for closure.

The solution is not to be too curious about poor media. You can find out the answer soon enough on cable TV a few months later.

Or you can read a few reviews before making a purchase (or not) I mean Rotten tomatoes and IMDB do exist...

Trouble with reviewers now is that many take the corporate coin and song praises when the purse jingles. This is more common with games than films though.

The back and forth about will it suck or won't it for various reasons is more entertaining than the movie promises to be.


Please, continue.




Also, I miss Rick Moranis

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well probably will check it out in the theaters to find out if it can stand on its own.

Please don't. Go watch a good movie instead; don't help make bad movies profitable.

Exactly this. Read the reviews. If it sounds bad, wait for it to hit redbox. You can rent it for $1.50, if you need to see it so badly. Take that $13 for the movie ticket and buy three pots of GW paint instead.

Or just don't care what angry folks on Dakka Dakka think about it and spend your money however you want and watch a movie.

 kronk wrote:
The back and forth about will it suck or won't it for various reasons is more entertaining than the movie promises to be.


Please, continue.

Yeah, ever since they announced the reboot, and that it would be an all-woman lineup, the drama surrounding this has been... well, what I sort of expect from the internet now, unfortunately.

Meh, like a lot of people, it didn't need a reboot. I had heard that it was a sequal, essentially the ladies were starting a franchise of Ghostbusters. Very disappointed that wasn't the case and is in fact a complete reboot. It even starts in the flippin library. Not a Melissa Mcarthy fan either, she really annoys me. I am not even an activist type and the Hollywood stereotypical black woman thing is bothersome, can we expect a head wobble too just to complete the type casting?

That said it had some funny parts, but I wont be kept awake with excitement the night before I go see it, if I go see it. I am glad I got to see the 30 year anniversary in the theaters a couple years back, that was fun.

 d-usa wrote:
Or just don't care what angry folks on Dakka Dakka think about it and spend your money however you want and watch a movie.

WRONG!

You must read these 3 specific reviewers that I only trust. If the average is not at least a 4.5 out of 5, then you cannot see it!

It's not about the movie, it's about sending a message!

Less Kevin Bacon, more lesbian scenes with Kate Upton.

Reviews as has been proven are a horrible way to decide to see a movie. I personally know of one instance where competitors have paid off reviewers to slam a movie to the point it tanked ridiculously even though a few weeks afterward peoples reviews online were excellent and the movie did well overseas. Don't piss Disney off.

The most recent example was that Will Smith football movie about head injuries. The NFL paid for that one to tank all over even though I had heard it was one of Will's best performances.

Col. Dash wrote:
Reviews as has been proven are a horrible way to decide to see a movie. I personally know of one instance where competitors have paid off reviewers to slam a movie to the point it tanked ridiculously even though a few weeks afterward peoples reviews online were excellent and the movie did well overseas. Don't piss Disney off.

The most recent example was that Will Smith football movie about head injuries. The NFL paid for that one to tank all over even though I had heard it was one of Will's best performances.

How do you explain the most recent Fantastic Four's theater run?? It was absolutely butchered in reviews, and it was fairly terrible in theater as well... Unless somehow different versions went to different theaters

They get it right from time to time or no one paid them to pan it.

In the case I mentioned, there is actually a lawsuit in the works based on some actual evidence they found. I have a family member who was a producer on it. They didn't want to play Hollywood games so they raised $200 mil and a good bit of change on their own to make and distribute a movie, had some big name voice actors, Patrick Stewart being the big one off the top of my head. Because they skipped Hollywood and didn't pay into the system Disney and I want to say Paramount made a direct competitor and paid the reviewers to pan the film and to screw with show times like putting a children's movie at 10pm on opening weekend. It has made a bit more money over seas. I am not sure where the lawsuit is at this point, I don't talk to that uncle very often.

I am sure this one will be great according to the reviewers, best movie of the year! I don't know which would be worse, watching a boring Oscar-bait movie or seeing my childhood beaten up. I didn't see a Stay-puff marshmellow man though so that's a bonus.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
Reviews as has been proven are a horrible way to decide to see a movie. I personally know of one instance where competitors have paid off reviewers to slam a movie to the point it tanked ridiculously even though a few weeks afterward peoples reviews online were excellent and the movie did well overseas. Don't piss Disney off.

The most recent example was that Will Smith football movie about head injuries. The NFL paid for that one to tank all over even though I had heard it was one of Will's best performances.

How do you explain the most recent Fantastic Four's theater run?? It was absolutely butchered in reviews, and it was fairly terrible in theater as well... Unless somehow different versions went to different theaters

They had to make a movie or lose the license. It's part of their contract and the people behind it themselves said that the movie sucked big time.

I have the feeling that the Godfather staring Kate Upton as Don Vito Corleone going to hit the theater in 2017

 Ouze wrote:

 kronk wrote:
The back and forth about will it suck or won't it for various reasons is more entertaining than the movie promises to be.


Please, continue.

Yeah, ever since they announced the reboot, and that it would be an all-woman lineup, the drama surrounding this has been... well, what I sort of expect from the internet now, unfortunately.

Agreed. That the internet is labelling any critic of this film as being a misogynist, is exactly what I expected

We're living in one of the worst artistic droughts in modern memory, and my problem with this film is not that it contains women, but because it's symptomatic of the lazy, re-booting, re-hashing, re-making, film industry that we're all used too.

The last two films I've seen (Force awakens) and SPECTRE, were so meh, they deserved to have their place in the dictionary under the definition of meh

Sadly, I think Ghostbusters will continue this trend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The new trailer is really, really good.

Doesn't make the content we know so far any better, but it's extremely well-cut.

Extremely well cut to the extent that everything flashed before my eyes before it registered!

Maybe that was deliberate!

Col. Dash wrote:
Reviews as has been proven are a horrible way to decide to see a movie. I personally know of one instance where competitors have paid off reviewers to slam a movie to the point it tanked ridiculously even though a few weeks afterward peoples reviews online were excellent and the movie did well overseas. Don't piss Disney off.

The most recent example was that Will Smith football movie about head injuries. The NFL paid for that one to tank all over even though I had heard it was one of Will's best performances.

You heard incorrectly. He was appropriately left out of the nominations. Bad accent. Preachy acting. He's better in a number of other films.

I'm a little confused about it.

In the trailer, it specifically mentioned the original crew saving NYC 30 years ago.

But this movie appears to be a step-by-step reboot, with inventing the ghostbusting tech and the confirmed existence of ghosts in general.

So, it is a complete do-over, is it not?

Other than that and the obvious rule 63 implications, it looks decent, I guess. The original was honestly not as amazing as it has made out to be - it was ok.

And the level of vitriol (generally, not here specifically) being dished out about the reboot of a long-dead franchise is kind of odd, honestly.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The last two films I've seen (Force awakens) and SPECTRE, were so meh, they deserved to have their place in the dictionary under the definition of meh

I don't agree with you on TFA, but SPECTRE was absolutely meh-tastic. In particular, the drowning cat opening music of Sam Smith (which seemed to go on for an eternity). ABOMINATION!! If I had a flame-thrower, his music would absolutely be on the receiving end of it.

Ahem. Back on topic...

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The last two films I've seen (Force awakens) and SPECTRE, were so meh, they deserved to have their place in the dictionary under the definition of meh

I don't agree with you on TFA, but SPECTRE was absolutely meh-tastic. In particular, the drowning cat opening music of Sam Smith (which seemed to go on for an eternity). ABOMINATION!! If I had a flame-thrower, his music would absolutely be on the receiving end of it.

Ahem. Back on topic...

To hell with the mods - I'm going renegade here!

To quickly address your point, I didn't mind Sam Smith's music - it wasn't the first bad Bond theme, and it won't be the last, but to waste an actor of Waltz's ability with such a mediocre script...

Back OT.

 kronk wrote:
Less Kevin Bacon, more lesbian scenes with Kate Upton.

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Cultural marxism the movie. If you like the trailer, you're a racist, if you dislike it, you're a sexist. That's been the crux of any discussion I've seen about it. It's getting hammered on youtube, massive dislike to like ratio.

The original wasnt really that good, watchable, some good moments, sure, but not on par with many of the really great films from that era.

I will likely sit this one out and preserve the positive memories I have from the original rather then taint that with the remake and have it join the ranks of robocop/terminator/ect

 Crablezworth wrote:
Cultural marxism the movie.

I didn't know that Marxism was on the Dakka bingo card?

I'm in the "I really want it to be good, but wasn't sold by the trailer" camp.

To be honest, what I'd really like is something new and fresh, but in the complete absence of that, I'm going to watch Kung Fu Panda 3 this weekend.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 kronk wrote:
The back and forth about will it suck or won't it for various reasons is more entertaining than the movie promises to be.


Please, continue.

Yeah, ever since they announced the reboot, and that it would be an all-woman lineup, the drama surrounding this has been... well, what I sort of expect from the internet now, unfortunately.

Agreed. That the internet is labelling any critic of this film as being a misogynist, is exactly what I expected

We're living in one of the worst artistic droughts in modern memory, and my problem with this film is not that it contains women, but because it's symptomatic of the lazy, re-booting, re-hashing, re-making, film industry that we're all used too.

The last two films I've seen (Force awakens) and SPECTRE, were so meh, they deserved to have their place in the dictionary under the definition of meh

Sadly, I think Ghostbusters will continue this trend.

Wow, an artistic drought? That is some pretty harsh language. I mean, you didn't like a few movies that have come out, but an artistic drought? There have been plenty of amazing movies that have come out very recently. Also, I really enjoyed The Force Awakens so it might be that some people have a different opinion of what is good compared to you.

I dunno, people being individuals and making their own decisions. Crazy thoughts for a crazy world.

Yeah, the artistic drought thing and the "age of the sequel/remakes" is something I've heard a lot.

Truth be told, I don't think it pans out. It's always been thus. - King Kong is a great example of this (And then, King Kong Lives as an example of a sequel to a reboot).

If anything, I'd say there's more sequels/reboots now, because there's more films to pick from, that's all. And that means, more franchises to mine.

Additionally, technology has progressed to the point that, I think a lot of people are wanting to put things on film in a way that does them justice. - Hence the comic book films.

So yeah, I understand all that theoretical stuff (plus the constant 'to make money' thing) but yeah, a proper sequel as opposed to the (probably) reboot, I would have been better with.

But still, the film looks kinda rubbish in my point of view.

 Ahtman wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Less Kevin Bacon, more lesbian scenes with Kate Upton.

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

This man gets me.

 Compel wrote:
Yeah, the artistic drought thing and the "age of the sequel/remakes" is something I've heard a lot.

Truth be told, I don't think it pans out. It's always been thus. - King Kong is a great example of this (And then, King Kong Lives as an example of a sequel to a reboot).

One thing to consider is the impact of DVD/Blu-Ray sales on Hollywood's offerings.

This radio program interviews an author who makes the argument that losses in DVD/Blu-Ray sales and the impact of growing foreign markets has caused Hollywood to focus on existing franchises and sequels as a way to make money--at the expense of smaller or more original projects.

http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/the-business/kevin-smith-on-funding-clerks-3-producer-lynda-obst


So, while sequels have been happening for almost as long as cinema has been a thing, the rapid shift in studio behavior to focus on sequels/franchises is a newer trend.

There are just more movies being made now too. Including a lot of independent films, which is where you can go if you want to see new ideas and stories.

Blockbuster-type films tend to be formula, which TBH isn't bad business strategy when you sink a hundred mil or two into a film.

 gorgon wrote:
Blockbuster-type films tend to be formula, which TBH isn't bad business strategy when you sink a hundred mil or two into a film.

I would tend to agree. The biggest korean movie ever made was only about a 40 million budget, but it was 80% english and stared primarily american/british/french actors. The vibe is basically, we're really happy to have made the biggest movie in korea's history, but we also don't want to lose 40 million dollars so it would have to work internationally. The big hollywood studios are the same, they don't want to take too many risks, and when a movie has a 100 million dollar budget I can see it from their perspective. The stuidos resembles triple a gaming taking no risks anymore and leaving that to the indie games. A lot of innovation in film is similar, leave all the risk to the indie's.