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.
lonestarr777 wrote: So rumor I've heard is that the youtube comments are being edited, and not in the way you might think.
Again haven't looked myself because that would mean digging through youtube comments, blech... but apperently Sony is supposedly deleting only criticism that is NOT sexist and racist.
So posts like "This looks really bland."get deleted while "Fish tacos ruin everything!!!1" gets left up.
I'm British, so I've pretty much never really seen SNL. (Except maybe a youtube video once or twice). My kinda sense of the film though was of a parody of a Ghostbusters film.
Like, if you spliced a few of the scenes into "Scary Movie" it wouldn't look out of place.
Compel wrote: I'm British, so I've pretty much never really seen SNL. (Except maybe a youtube video once or twice). My kinda sense of the film though was of a parody of a Ghostbusters film.
Like, if you spliced a few of the scenes into "Scary Movie" it wouldn't look out of place.
that's probably the best way Ive seeen this film described. Thats exactly how it comes off.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
People might still like it of course, it may still end up being popular. - After all, Scary Movie 1 and 2 are generally well received, then there's a bunch of sequels after them.
But that still doesn't mean it's what I'm looking for from a Ghostbusters film.
Right, exactly, Scary Movie is not usually talked about in the same way Ghostbusters is, and that clash is the problem.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I also agree with the damning Scary Movie equivalence. The only question now is if it's more like the Wayans' Scary Movies or the ZAZ Scary Movies. Either way, we lose.
New trailer, still sucks.
Different gags, still not funny.
More gags delivered via hysterical screams
Racism awareness stereotype joke box ticked.
Male sexist joke box ticked.
Still licking the fething gun.
It reinforces the total-fail-in-waiting this film will be.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
lonestarr777 wrote: So rumor I've heard is that the youtube comments are being edited, and not in the way you might think.
Again haven't looked myself because that would mean digging through youtube comments, blech... but apperently Sony is supposedly deleting only criticism that is NOT sexist and racist.
So posts like "This looks really bland."get deleted while "Fish tacos ruin everything!!!1" gets left up.
Yeah they've been doing that since the start.
Well, to save you guys some time, I made the herculean effort of reading a few pages of youtube comments. No, there is not a feminist illuminati conspiracy to only leave negative comments in place that make it seem like any criticism of the movie is sexist or racist in nature. The vast majority of the negative comments are the same nature as they are here: that they don't think the movie looks funny, or is original.
However, there could be some botting going on, but it's mostly positive comments - of an extremely generic and suspicious nature. Maybe they're just non-native english speakers.. maybe they're scripted. If they're scripted, it makes sense by an automation perspective: it's not super hard to randomly insert comments from a table like "looks great!", but it's very tedious to actually read 6 comments a second for context for 18 days straight to spin a story. And finally, if they're going to be that corrupt to begin with, it would be a lot easier to simply generate racist and sexist comments to forge that (nonexistent) narrative... and there simply are very few comments, percentage-wise, that I saw that were racist or sexist.
Not to mention, of course, that the ROI is nonexistent since literally no one in the history of ever decided to see or not see a movie based upon youtube comments. Not when there are better ways to rig the system!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/22 02:40:58
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I just wanted to add Mundane Matt to the Angry Joe reaction, because so far the really funny bits to come out of this have been watching people's faces as the reality of the trailer dawns on them.
This should skip directly to the trailer reaction: his expression is aptly described as 'like watching someone's childhood die';
Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
lonestarr777 wrote: So rumor I've heard is that the youtube comments are being edited, and not in the way you might think.
Again haven't looked myself because that would mean digging through youtube comments, blech... but apperently Sony is supposedly deleting only criticism that is NOT sexist and racist.
So posts like "This looks really bland."get deleted while "Fish tacos ruin everything!!!1" gets left up.
Yeah they've been doing that since the start.
Well, to save you guys some time, I made the herculean effort of reading a few pages of youtube comments. No, there is not a feminist illuminati conspiracy to only leave negative comments in place that make it seem like any criticism of the movie is sexist or racist in nature. The vast majority of the negative comments are the same nature as they are here: that they don't think the movie looks funny, or is original.
However, there could be some botting going on, but it's mostly positive comments - of an extremely generic and suspicious nature. Maybe they're just non-native english speakers.. maybe they're scripted. If they're scripted, it makes sense by an automation perspective: it's not super hard to randomly insert comments from a table like "looks great!", but it's very tedious to actually read 6 comments a second for context for 18 days straight to spin a story. And finally, if they're going to be that corrupt to begin with, it would be a lot easier to simply generate racist and sexist comments to forge that (nonexistent) narrative... and there simply are very few comments, percentage-wise, that I saw that were racist or sexist.
Not to mention, of course, that the ROI is nonexistent since literally no one in the history of ever decided to see or not see a movie based upon youtube comments. Not when there are better ways to rig the system!
I congratulate you on your fortitude and stamina. Thank you for proving my rumor false.
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
Are you kidding? There is no-way that you could remake a Mel Brooks film nowadays.
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
I happen to agree with Kronk.... Bill Murray performances tend to be, well, Bill Murray performances. The thing is, Ghostbusters isn't a masterpiece like say, 2001 or Godfather part 1 are. It isn't some movie that you can watch 30+ years after it was made and say, "Wow, that was a really deep movie," like you can with say, Blade Runner.
Ghostbusters was a silly premised movie that is beloved by fans. The same as Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, etc. What I see Kronk saying is that people in this thread are putting GB onto a pedestal that it shouldn't be on.
EDIT: I agree with Crazy_Carnifex.... there's no way you could remake a Mel Brooks movie in today's world. Hell, I doubt Mel could make his own movies the way his fans know in today's world.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/22 17:15:58
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
Are you questioning Kronk? I thought that was a violation of the rules?
kronk wrote: Ghostbusters The First was a fun little movie, but don't make it out to be more that it was. Great one-liners, silly premise. A Bill Murray delivery device.
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ass!"
"Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
"It's true your honor. This man has no penis."
I don't understand your point. A lot of beloved movies could be reduced to "great one-liners, silly premise" but that doesn't mean they aren't still excellent films that are cherished by fans.
So if any of those films received what looks to be a hollow re-make the take-away according to you would be "oh well, they weren't good films to begin with?"
I happen to agree with Kronk.... Bill Murray performances tend to be, well, Bill Murray performances. The thing is, Ghostbusters isn't a masterpiece like say, 2001 or Godfather part 1 are. It isn't some movie that you can watch 30+ years after it was made and say, "Wow, that was a really deep movie," like you can with say, Blade Runner.
Ghostbusters was a silly premised movie that is beloved by fans. The same as Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, etc. What I see Kronk saying is that people in this thread are putting GB onto a pedestal that it shouldn't be on.
That really isn't for you (or Kronk) to say, though. How some people rank movies among their personal favorites is entirely up to those individuals. I don't think anyone is saying that Ghostbusters is a deep movie. It is however a movie with a very passionate fan base. It is an important movie to those fans. For some of those fans it is their favorite movie above all other movies. Are those fans wrong about Ghostbusters being their favorite movie?
Frankly I am more than a little sick of this attitude in this thread. I already had someone tell me my opinion on the new ghost visuals was essentially wrong because they liked the visuals instead. Since we are going off of opinions in this thread, all of our opinions should be valid.
If you don't think Ghostbusters is that big of a deal, fine, but some people obviously hold the movie in higher regard than you do. So telling those same people that the movie they like "isn't a masterpiece" is pointless to the discussion. Its a masterpiece to those who deem it so. Just like others could deem the same movie to be a dumpster fire.
Yours and Kronk's responses merit a big "so what?"
So what is your point? That Ghostbusters isn't the same pedigree of film as 2001: A Space Odyssey? Great! No one in here as far as I know made that claim, but cool, I am glad we got that issue covered.
It's less of a "ghostbusters wasn't a great movie" and more of a "the original had many of the same problems that people are complaining about now" observation.
d-usa wrote: It's less of a "ghostbusters wasn't a great movie" and more of a "the original had many of the same problems that people are complaining about now" observation.
As an observation I think it still merits a "so what" type of response.
If a movie remake that is 32 years removed from the original "fails" in many of same ways as the original so what? The original movie came first. It has the benefit of novelty and nostalgia to smooth out the rough edges. That doesn't give the remake a pass, if anything it damns the remake more for not finding a solution to those problems in the first place.
d-usa wrote: It's less of a "ghostbusters wasn't a great movie" and more of a "the original had many of the same problems that people are complaining about now" observation.
As an observation I think it still merits a "so what" type of response.
If a movie remake that is 32 years removed from the original "fails" in many of same ways as the original so what? The original movie came first. It has the benefit of novelty and nostalgia to smooth out the rough edges. That doesn't give the remake a pass, if anything it damns the remake more for not finding a solution to those problems in the first place.
To be frank, all of your responses to me (last couple of posts from you) make me say "so what." Your opinion is just, like, your opinion, man.
I enjoy Ghostbusters in that it's a funny show. But I can look myself in the mirror and say that "Yes, Kronk, you enjoy a silly, silly show that is no masterpiece of theater".
I guess you can't. And that's OK.
Also, I don't give the remake a pass. I think it looks unfunny AF. Stop putting words in people's mouth. That's naughty and you shouldn't do it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/22 20:18:28
I would say the original was a masterpiece (as far as comedies go) almost every joke lands with me (and I don't feel insulted with them) or at least makes sense, there is set up and pay off, a tight script, a fun premise, interesting characters, etc the only flaws I see in the movie is some of the
special effects are a little dated and don't look that convincing but since the movie is from the 80's and is a comedy (I don't go to comedies expecting to see amazing special effects) and that Winston is underdeveloped relative to the other ghost busters. Other than that I would say it's a near
perfect movie. Also comparing it to the Godfather or 2001 seems a little weird to me there is literally no crossover in those movies with Ghostbusters.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/22 22:53:38
Cheesecat wrote: I would say the original was a masterpiece (as far as comedies go) almost every joke lands with me (and I don't feel insulted with them) or at least makes sense, there is set up and pay off, a tight script, a fun premise, interesting characters, etc
IMO, the reason this works, because I also thoroughly enjoy the movie (despite what one poster may think), is that there is a very real and visible on-screen chemistry.
Nothing in this remake gives me the feeling
Also, While Godfather and 2001 have no crossover with GB, they are near universally regarded as "masterpieces" of cinema. Hell, Godfather and 2001 really have nothing in common.
Frankly I am more than a little sick of this attitude in this thread. I already had someone tell me my opinion on the new ghost visuals was essentially wrong because they liked the visuals instead. Since we are going off of opinions in this thread, all of our opinions should be valid.
Uh, no. That is not what I said. I said you do not understand what a lens flare is or the appropriate time to use a green screen.
Do not try to put words in my mouth to make it look like you are a victim.
Cheesecat wrote: I would say the original was a masterpiece (as far as comedies go) almost every joke lands with me (and I don't feel insulted with them) or at least makes sense, there is set up and pay off, a tight script, a fun premise, interesting characters, etc
IMO, the reason this works, because I also thoroughly enjoy the movie (despite what one poster may think), is that there is a very real and visible on-screen chemistry.
Nothing in this remake gives me the feeling
Also, While Godfather and 2001 have no crossover with GB, they are near universally regarded as "masterpieces" of cinema. Hell, Godfather and 2001 really have nothing in common.
Yeah, the on screen chemistry is pretty important aspect of GB and you had a lot comedic talent as well.
Yeah, the on screen chemistry is pretty important aspect of GB and you had a lot comedic talent as well.
In a comedy, I'd probably rank screen chemistry as one of the top things. Anyone remember "Grown Ups" ?? It's got a bunch of comedians, but I found it genuinely not funny.
Yeah, the on screen chemistry is pretty important aspect of GB and you had a lot comedic talent as well.
In a comedy, I'd probably rank screen chemistry as one of the top things. Anyone remember "Grown Ups" ?? It's got a bunch of comedians, but I found it genuinely not funny.
Well it's an Adam Sandler flick so a miserable experience is expected. I mean Adam Sandler is to comedy in what AIDS is to the human condition.
I was thinking a little more about the film again today.
You've got the bit with the 'pistols' - Done appropriately, the whole over dramatic thing with those is actually kinda funny, considering the characters in overalls, it's not a Action Movie and so on.
The joke is then taken too far with her licking the pistols. - That is a classic kind of 'Scary Movie' gag to me and isn't what I find funny.
Yeah, the on screen chemistry is pretty important aspect of GB and you had a lot comedic talent as well.
In a comedy, I'd probably rank screen chemistry as one of the top things. Anyone remember "Grown Ups" ?? It's got a bunch of comedians, but I found it genuinely not funny.
Well it's an Adam Sandler flick so a miserable experience is expected. I mean Adam Sandler is to comedy in what AIDS is to the human condition.
Woah woah woah, saying that implies that his earlier works are HIV and he does actually have some pretty good movies. I mean pretty much all of his recent stuff is trash, but Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, and even Little Nicky were pretty good.
