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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time.

Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Big Trouble in Little China, The Blues Brothers, and Midnight Run would like to have a word with you.

And Die Hard would like to have a word with you.

Who are you responding to, because you don't make any sense.

For starters, Die Hard is just a straight up action movie, not an action comedy or any other action film sub-genre so it doesn't make sense to be in a list of action comedies like the one I made. Also, Die Hard is one of my favorite movies of all time, soooo... good try, I guess?

That's not saying the original Ghostbusters wasnt fantastic. It sits in the upper echelons of 80's films.

Yeah, Ghostbusters is a great movie and I'd put it on a list of "Great Comedies of the 80s." But Kroll said it's one of the best movies of all time, which is so laughably ridiculous it shouldn't even be responded to.

Yet here you are trolling away....even though that clearly wasn't the thrust of my argument. But don't let that get in the way of a good personal attack will you

The posts I was responding to were acting like it was a bad 80s comedy film, akin to an Adam Sandler Netflix exclusive. It clearly isn't. Ghostbusters is unarguably an all time classic. Sure you can list a bunch of other 80s classics that are comprable to it and also elicit fond memories, I'm not going to decry those films or say those are any better or worse. The 80s was a golden age frankly. We probably won't see it's like again. Especially when Hollywood seems set on dredging up its ideas and repackaging them for a modern audience over and over again. You can bet that if this movie does well enough that Back to the Future, or Beverly Hills Cop will be next. Maybe Beiber will play Mcfly, or they will have Will Smiths son as Axle Foley...won't that be ripper! Who knows maybe Justin could do a dub step cover of the power of love.

None of this crap takes away from the wonderful classics we were given in the 80s, it's just disappointing and annoying that a) we don't get cool and original movies anymore. When was the last time we got a blockbuster that wasn't based on a comic reboot or a sequel? b) the reboots we are getting seem to be deliberately excluding parts of the audience, this Ghostbusters film, seems to have gone out of its way to stick it's middle finger up to the old fan base. That seems like a shame to me. Things could have been so much different. Without all this controversy they probably would have made a lot more money this weekend. I know it's free publicity and all that, but sometimes bad news isn't always good publicity.

The older fan base already got a Ghostbusters movie, why make a movie for a smaller and aging fan base when you can make a movie for a younger and larger audience?

Watching it, it just seemed like a waste of the talents of the people involved.

 d-usa wrote:
The older fan base already got a Ghostbusters movie, why make a movie for a smaller and aging fan base when you can make a movie for a younger and larger audience?

Younger me got over kids finding a new way to enjoy Transformers, old Ghostbuster fans will survive this attack on their childhood too.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Watching it, it just seemed like a waste of the talents of the people involved.

Exactly

 Ouze wrote:
The original Ghostbusters would probably make my top 10 comedies, but one of the greatest movies of all time? That's a real stretch.

Good piece on how internet movie reviewing is broken, according to 538.

I think that's where I sit.

That being said, Ghostbusters, for me, is incredibly rewatch able and somehow doesn't feel very dated.

I think for me, Ghostbusters is one of those movies where there is a direct distinction between it being "good" and it being "enjoyable". I think there are a ton of movies that aren't good, but I still enjoy them.

 General Kroll wrote:
Yet here you are trolling away....even though that clearly wasn't the thrust of my argument. But don't let that get in the way of a good personal attack will you

I'm not trolling you nor am I "attacking" you so get over yourself, pal. You made a couple of hyperbolic statements and I pointed out that they were pretty ridiculous because they are.

The 80s was a golden age frankly.

Yeah, except it wasn't. The 80s are considered one of the worst decades of cinema, especially since it followed what is probably the greatest decade of cinema.

Well, I have the soundtrack in hand.

A lot of bad remixes of the original theme here.

Pentatonix remix of the original theme was probably the best track on it bar Ray Parker's Original, and..... that's not saying much. Some of them are flat out painful. Even Missy Elliot could not save Fallout Boy's remix of the original theme.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Yet here you are trolling away....even though that clearly wasn't the thrust of my argument. But don't let that get in the way of a good personal attack will you

I'm not trolling you nor am I "attacking" you so get over yourself, pal. You made a couple of hyperbolic statements and I pointed out that they were pretty ridiculous because they are.

The 80s was a golden age frankly.

Yeah, except it wasn't. The 80s are considered one of the worst decades of cinema, especially since it followed what is probably the greatest decade of cinema.

Opinions are going to differ...but I'm not the one who reeled off a list of great 80s movies a couple of pages back...

Personally, I'd say it was a golden age, especially for sc-fi, action and adventure. The fact that Hollywood is desperately trying to mine it for IP is quite telling.

Robocop 80s (remade) Ghostbusters 80s (remade) Indiana Jones 80s (recent sequel, due to be rebooted) Total Recall 80s (remade) Terminator franchise 80s (rebooted) Labrynth 80s (due to be remade) you even had a National Lampoon Vacation reboot past year.

Still like I said opinions will vary and we could argue about what decade is a great decade until we are blue in the face, but if the 80s were so goddam awful? Why are Hollywood dredging up so many of its franchises?

But seriously when was the last blockbuster that was based on an original idea? So not a comic book or a sequel, or a remake/reboot?

 General Kroll wrote:
Opinions are going to differ...but I'm not the one who reeled off a list of great 80s movies a couple of pages back...

What does that have to do with anything? Despite the 80s being a low watermark in the history of cinema, good movies were still made in that decade some of which I previously listed.

Personally, I'd say it was a golden age, especially for sc-fi, action and adventure. The fact that Hollywood is desperately trying to mine it for IP is quite telling.

That's fine if you think the 80s were a "Golden Age" for cinema. Plenty of people who know way more about movies than either of us do respectfully disagree with you about that.

Robocop 80s (remade) Ghostbusters 80s (remade) Indiana Jones 80s (recent sequel, due to be rebooted) Total Recall 80s (remade) Terminator franchise 80s (rebooted) Labrynth 80s (due to be remade) you even had a National Lampoon Vacation reboot past year.

Yeah, your point is what exactly? RoboCop, Ghostbusters, Terminator, and Indiana Jones are all popular multimedia franchises, which is why they are continuing to make movies about them. Total Recall isn't an original work to begin with and there are unconfirmed rumors that Labyrinth is being remade but chances are it isn't happening.

Still like I said opinions will vary and we could argue about what decade is a great decade until we are blue in the face, but if the 80s were so goddam awful? Why are Hollywood dredging up so many of its franchises?

Like I've already said, good movies came from the 80s despite the decade being not great as a whole. Surely you understand how something like that can be, right?

But seriously when was the last blockbuster that was based on an original idea? So not a comic book or a sequel, or a remake/reboot?

Blockbusters aren't the only kind of movie out there and there have been "original" blockbusters in recent years: Inception, Interstellar, Avatar (even though it is Last of the Mohicans in SPAAAAAACE!), Gravity, Frozen (loosely based on The Snow Queen), Pacific Rim. Besides, Hollywood has been derivative for its entire existence; this isn't some hip, new phase.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Sometimes that's the case but a lot of these remade properties do actually come from genuine classics like Ghostbusters, Robocop, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The older fan base already got a Ghostbusters movie, why make a movie for a smaller and aging fan base when you can make a movie for a younger and larger audience?

Honestly both concepts work for me, the idea of doing a remake that still appeals to the original fans is just as valid as modernizing it for newer audiences.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Opinions are going to differ...but I'm not the one who reeled off a list of great 80s movies a couple of pages back...

What does that have to do with anything? Despite the 80s being a low watermark in the history of cinema, good movies were still made in that decade some of which I previously listed.

Personally, I'd say it was a golden age, especially for sc-fi, action and adventure. The fact that Hollywood is desperately trying to mine it for IP is quite telling.

That's fine if you think the 80s were a "Golden Age" for cinema. Plenty of people who know way more about movies than either of us do respectfully disagree with you about that.

Robocop 80s (remade) Ghostbusters 80s (remade) Indiana Jones 80s (recent sequel, due to be rebooted) Total Recall 80s (remade) Terminator franchise 80s (rebooted) Labrynth 80s (due to be remade) you even had a National Lampoon Vacation reboot past year.

Yeah, your point is what exactly? RoboCop, Ghostbusters, Terminator, and Indiana Jones are all popular multimedia franchises, which is why they are continuing to make movies about them. Total Recall isn't an original work to begin with and there are unconfirmed rumors that Labyrinth is being remade but chances are it isn't happening.

Still like I said opinions will vary and we could argue about what decade is a great decade until we are blue in the face, but if the 80s were so goddam awful? Why are Hollywood dredging up so many of its franchises?

Like I've already said, good movies came from the 80s despite the decade being not great as a whole. Surely you understand how something like that can be, right?

But seriously when was the last blockbuster that was based on an original idea? So not a comic book or a sequel, or a remake/reboot?

Blockbusters aren't the only kind of movie out there and there have been "original" blockbusters in recent years: Inception, Interstellar, Avatar (even though it is Last of the Mohicans in SPAAAAAACE!), Gravity, Frozen (loosely based on The Snow Queen), Pacific Rim. Besides, Hollywood has been derivative for its entire existence; this isn't some hip, new phase.

Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises. Their are by in large serious films that were Oscar fodder, that for some reason your trying to compare to Hollywood popcorn fodder. I find that odd in its own right. As you say, Frozen itself like most Disney princess films isn't based on an original concept, but jumps off from a traditional story.

How about you try comparing the argument at hand instead though? Summer popcorn films? It's pretty much all comic book movies, remakes, prequels, or sequels.

The last few summers have been dominated by the Marvel cinematic universe, the Star Trek reboots, the Terminator reboots, the Mad Max remake. Etc etc.

What do we have this summer? Ghostbusters, Turtles, Star Trek, Independence Day, and Suicide Squad.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm damn excited for the suicide squad. But I'd love to see this generations "ghostbusters, Star Trek and Independence Day" as in, original cool funny movies, that excite entertain and inspire me.

Back on the subject of Ghostbusters 2016, I just wish they'd made something that was a continuation of the old story line, and that was more respectful. I think they probably could have got away with a few more things had they done that. I've a feeling, this film will be swept under the rug come the end of the summer and Sony and Paul Feig will be hoping we all forget about it very soon.

So, I'm about 2/3rds of the way through watching Spy. Gotta say, there is some funny stuff in there (Alison Janney is great, but then, that's a tautology) and a couple of visual jokes I liked. - Overall, "Get Smart" is more appealing to me, which was a variant on the same sort of plotline.

However, there are a bunch of gags in there that do seem very, very similar to those in the Ghostbusters trailer - eg the vomit gags.

So yeah, I'll give Ghostbusters a pass, maybe see it when it comes on tv and if it isn't too long a film. But to pay about £25 for a day at the cinema, nah, definitely not, I'll pass.

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises.

Your demands are contradictory. You can't reject the most recent Pacific Rim film because it's not part of a franchise (yet) when you were specifically complaining about there being too many films that are parts of franchises.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises.

Your demands are contradictory. You can't reject the most recent Pacific Rim film because it's not part of a franchise (yet) when you were specifically complaining about there being too many films that are parts of franchises.

Wasn't Pacific Rim considered by many to be a flop? Sure it was an original film, great. But again, it's the exception rather than the rule, and it's hardly what could be considered a big hit and a household name. It's hardly this generations Indiana Jones, or Star Wars. Scoff all you like, but compare the biggest films of the year when the original Ghostbusters was released, and the biggest films of the year when the remake was released. And without looking them up is guess the top 10 in 1984 were dominated by original properties, while the top 10 this year will be dominated by comic book movies, reboots, or sequels.

I went and looked them up...only one or two of this years top grossing movies are original properties. http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031261985/
The rest are remakes, sequels, or based on comic books or novels.

1984 is a completely different story however... http://www.imdb.com/search/title?sort=boxoffice_gross_us&title_type=feature&year=1984,1984

Lots of original movies, still lots of movies based on books, and a couple of comic movies, but only four or five sequels out of the top fifty.

 General Kroll wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises.

Your demands are contradictory. You can't reject the most recent Pacific Rim film because it's not part of a franchise (yet) when you were specifically complaining about there being too many films that are parts of franchises.

Wasn't Pacific Rim considered by many to be a flop? Sure it was an original film, great.

No. In the US it did not do so well, but internationally it did pretty good. They are making a second movie just because of its international success.

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises. Their are by in large serious films that were Oscar fodder, that for some reason your trying to compare to Hollywood popcorn fodder. I find that odd in its own right. As you say, Frozen itself like most Disney princess films isn't based on an original concept, but jumps off from a traditional story.

You asked a question, I gave you an answer. It's not my fault you didn't like the answer. Also, "not smash hits?" Seriously? Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

Interstellar $675.1 million box office on a $165 million budget

Gravity: $723.2 million box office a $100 million budget

Inception: $825.5 million box office on a $160 million budget

I'd like to know in what world those wouldn't be considered successful films.

How about you try comparing the argument at hand instead though? Summer popcorn films? It's pretty much all comic book movies, remakes, prequels, or sequels.

See, now you're moving the goalposts. You asked for "blockbusters" and I gave you some. Since it proved you wrong, now you're asking for "summer popcorn films."

The last few summers have been dominated by the Marvel cinematic universe, the Star Trek reboots, the Terminator reboots, the Mad Max remake. Etc etc.

Terminator: Genisys and Mad Max: Fury Road weren't reboots.

What do we have this summer? Ghostbusters, Turtles, Star Trek, Independence Day, and Suicide Squad.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm damn excited for the suicide squad. But I'd love to see this generations "ghostbusters, Star Trek and Independence Day" as in, original cool funny movies, that excite entertain and inspire me.

Well I guess it's a good thing that Hollywood doesn't bow to the desires of one guy in the UK.

Back on the subject of Ghostbusters 2016, I just wish they'd made something that was a continuation of the old story line, and that was more respectful. I think they probably could have got away with a few more things had they done that. I've a feeling, this film will be swept under the rug come the end of the summer and Sony and Paul Feig will be hoping we all forget about it very soon.

I don't see how a soft reboot is disrespectful when Ghostbusters 2 already gak all over the franchise years ago.

 General Kroll wrote:
1984 is a completely different story however... http://www.imdb.com/search/title?sort=boxoffice_gross_us&title_type=feature&year=1984,1984

Lots of original movies, still lots of movies based on books, and a couple of comic movies, but only four or five sequels out of the top fifty.

You cherry picked one year out of a decade to try to prove your point. You could easily do the same with movies from, say... 2015. A handful of sequels, a bunch of book adaptions (Hollywood's favorite!), and lots of original films.

Today I learned today's movies are garbage because they are all bad movies with thin premises and sequels, and not at all like the decade that gave us 8 Friday the 13th films.

But at least we got 6 Police Academies out of it!

 d-usa wrote:
But at least we got 6 Police Academies out of it!

I liked that guy who could make the funny noises. He was so good, he got a lucrative Space Balls cameo.

So back on top, out of the two critics I follow online, MundaneMatt and Nostalgia Critic, both of them found the movie to be watchable but not great.

The common thread in their reviews was that the film has alot of dry spots where jokes just flat out fail. Some parts earned a chuckle or laugh only to be followed by stretches of silence.

Apperently it starts out strong even, and then promptly derails. Both these critics views I find to be in line with my tastes usually so I can trust officially this a pass for me.

I also found it humorous that both these men had women in thier lives have a negative reaction to the film. Mundane Matts girlfriend asked "Why does this movie hate men?" And "Can we get our money back?" While the Nostalgia Critic's mother stood up at the end and flat out declared "This sucks!"

The wife and daughter are going along with with several moms. The wife has made up a ghostbusters uniform to wear, but she did that when we went to the Sean of the Dead quote along too (where she won the chug a beer contest...)

I think Da Wimminz seem much more jazzed about seeing this.
Me I'm looking forward to quality parenting by taking the daughter to see Suicide Squad.

Someone brought up Mad Max: Fury Road and I think that's actually a great comparison for this film. MM:FR has a female lead, it's a reboot of a franchise where Mad Max is not the lead, and yet it's all around a better film. Why? It was well written, well directed, and done without the need to say "Hey, we have a female lead, look at this female cast". Sure, Max was in the film, but 90% of the time he was silent, assisting Charlize Theron, or just being a jerk.

Hell, even in the climax/pivotal scene, Max rides over to Charlize to deliver the epiphany, but she makes the choice. She also kills the big bad guy.

People don't have a problem with female leads, people have a problem with bad movies and cheap shots at nostalgia for profit's sake.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises. Their are by in large serious films that were Oscar fodder, that for some reason your trying to compare to Hollywood popcorn fodder. I find that odd in its own right. As you say, Frozen itself like most Disney princess films isn't based on an original concept, but jumps off from a traditional story.

You asked a question, I gave you an answer. It's not my fault you didn't like the answer. Also, "not smash hits?" Seriously? Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

Interstellar $675.1 million box office on a $165 million budget

Gravity: $723.2 million box office a $100 million budget

Inception: $825.5 million box office on a $160 million budget

I'd like to know in what world those wouldn't be considered successful films.

How about you try comparing the argument at hand instead though? Summer popcorn films? It's pretty much all comic book movies, remakes, prequels, or sequels.

See, now you're moving the goalposts. You asked for "blockbusters" and I gave you some. Since it proved you wrong, now you're asking for "summer popcorn films."

The last few summers have been dominated by the Marvel cinematic universe, the Star Trek reboots, the Terminator reboots, the Mad Max remake. Etc etc.

Terminator: Genisys and Mad Max: Fury Road weren't reboots.

What do we have this summer? Ghostbusters, Turtles, Star Trek, Independence Day, and Suicide Squad.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm damn excited for the suicide squad. But I'd love to see this generations "ghostbusters, Star Trek and Independence Day" as in, original cool funny movies, that excite entertain and inspire me.

Well I guess it's a good thing that Hollywood doesn't bow to the desires of one guy in the UK.

Back on the subject of Ghostbusters 2016, I just wish they'd made something that was a continuation of the old story line, and that was more respectful. I think they probably could have got away with a few more things had they done that. I've a feeling, this film will be swept under the rug come the end of the summer and Sony and Paul Feig will be hoping we all forget about it very soon.

I don't see how a soft reboot is disrespectful when Ghostbusters 2 already gak all over the franchise years ago.

 General Kroll wrote:
1984 is a completely different story however... http://www.imdb.com/search/title?sort=boxoffice_gross_us&title_type=feature&year=1984,1984

Lots of original movies, still lots of movies based on books, and a couple of comic movies, but only four or five sequels out of the top fifty.

You cherry picked one year out of a decade to try to prove your point. You could easily do the same with movies from, say... 2015. A handful of sequels, a bunch of book adaptions (Hollywood's favorite!), and lots of original films.

You're comparing oranges and apples with the likes of Interstellar and gravity though.. That's my point. It's hardly a straigh up comparison with the likes of the avengers, ghostbusters and Indiana Jones.

It's more akin to the likes of 2001, Blade Runner, or 1984. I'm talking about Hollywood fluff, not serious cinema. It's you that are moving the goal posts to fit the argument you want to present, if you want to get nitpicky...

As for Terminator Genysis and Fury Road not being reboots. Pull the other one. Several main characters recast, hopers of restarting both franchises etc. They aren't new material in their own right, nor do they continue the story with the same actors and characters in the same roles.

Ergo. Reboots. Either way, it's by the by. Hollywood is bereft of ideas when it comes to the major summer tentpeg movies. They are too scared to take risks, they'd far rather put all their money on the comic book action heroes or a trusted franchise. If they can reboot a well known name that is likely to be a big draw then they will. They aren't interested in telling new stories or taking the audience on new adventures with new characters anymore.

You know what else I'm sick and tired of, this fallacy that Ghostbusters 2 was somehow so terrible that it destroyed the franchise. It wasn't as good as the original, that was pretty much it's only crime. It was still a fun comedy movie. It still had all the awesome character interaction between the original team that made the first movie so great, it was just let down by the fact that it was basically a carbon copy story line. It's far from awful. You say it's disrespectful to the original because you think it's bad. Could you outline how please. I've already outlined how and why I think this remake, and it's director have been disrespectful to the fans of the original.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:Today I learned today's movies are garbage because they are all bad movies with thin premises and sequels, and not at all like the decade that gave us 8 Friday the 13th films.

Yes because that's exactly what I'm saying isn't it....

lonestarr777 wrote:So back on top, out of the two critics I follow online, MundaneMatt and Nostalgia Critic, both of them found the movie to be watchable but not great.

The common thread in their reviews was that the film has alot of dry spots where jokes just flat out fail. Some parts earned a chuckle or laugh only to be followed by stretches of silence.

Apperently it starts out strong even, and then promptly derails. Both these critics views I find to be in line with my tastes usually so I can trust officially this a pass for me.

I also found it humorous that both these men had women in thier lives have a negative reaction to the film. Mundane Matts girlfriend asked "Why does this movie hate men?" And "Can we get our money back?" While the Nostalgia Critic's mother stood up at the end and flat out declared "This sucks!"

Mundane Matts coverage has been pretty good throughout the whole thing. Comic book girl 19 did a good video about the whole issues surrounding the movie and why she won't be reviewing it today as well.

Angry Joes review is hilariously angry as you might imagine.

I enjoyed the new Ghostbusters. I felt the story worked pretty well and the chemistry of the cast was good. I did feel the final fight was a bit too superheroy, but overall I liked the movie and the lady i saw it with loved it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises.

Your demands are contradictory. You can't reject the most recent Pacific Rim film because it's not part of a franchise (yet) when you were specifically complaining about there being too many films that are parts of franchises.

Wasn't Pacific Rim considered by many to be a flop? Sure it was an original film, great.

No. In the US it did not do so well, but internationally it did pretty good. They are making a second movie just because of its international success.

I thought that got cancelled. Don't tease me. Please don't be teasing me. I love me some giant robots.

Pacific Rim 2 is most definitely not cancelled. It has a release date slotted, and is set to start filming in November.

It did OK domestically and well enough internationally to warrant it.

 Ouze wrote:
Pacific Rim 2 is most definitely not cancelled. It has a release date slotted, and is set to start filming in November.

It did OK domestically and well enough internationally to warrant it.

Just saw some articles confirming this. Thank sweet white baby Jesus. Now by all means continue hating/not hating on Ghostbusters.

 General Kroll wrote:
You're comparing oranges and apples with the likes of Interstellar and gravity though..

How so? You asked for blockbuster movies and they're blockbuster movies.

That's my point.

You don't really have a point, which is part of the problem here.

It's hardly a straigh up comparison with the likes of the avengers, ghostbusters and Indiana Jones.

It's more akin to the likes of 2001, Blade Runner, or 1984. I'm talking about Hollywood fluff, not serious cinema. It's you that are moving the goal posts to fit the argument you want to present, if you want to get nitpicky...

Not quite, mate. You're the one that keeps changing what a "blockbuster" film every time a new piece of information makes your already terrible argument look even worse. This was your original question:

 General Kroll wrote:
But seriously when was the last blockbuster that was based on an original idea? So not a comic book or a sequel, or a remake/reboot?

I gave you a bunch of them and then you immediately changed your argument, which is the very definition of "goalpost moving."

As for Terminator Genysis and Fury Road not being reboots. Pull the other one. Several main characters recast, hopers of restarting both franchises etc. They aren't new material in their own right, nor do they continue the story with the same actors and characters in the same roles.

They still aren't reboots; they're sequels. Though I'm not surprised that you're trying to change the definition of "reboot" like you have with "blockbuster."

Ergo. Reboots. Either way, it's by the by. Hollywood is bereft of ideas when it comes to the major summer tentpeg movies. They are too scared to take risks, they'd far rather put all their money on the comic book action heroes or a trusted franchise. If they can reboot a well known name that is likely to be a big draw then they will. They aren't interested in telling new stories or taking the audience on new adventures with new characters anymore.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to movies.

You know what else I'm sick and tired of, this fallacy that Ghostbusters 2 was somehow so terrible that it destroyed the franchise. It wasn't as good as the original, that was pretty much it's only crime. It was still a fun comedy movie. It still had all the awesome character interaction between the original team that made the first movie so great, it was just let down by the fact that it was basically a carbon copy story line. It's far from awful. You say it's disrespectful to the original because you think it's bad. Could you outline how please. I've already outlined how and why I think this remake, and it's director have been disrespectful to the fans of the original.

Ghostbusters II sucking isn't a fallacy. It was given mixed reviews upon its release and opinions haven't changed since. Interestingly enough, do you know what one of the biggest complaints about the movie was? It didn't try anything new.

Here's the question though... have you actually seen the new Ghostbusters movie to say that it's bad or are you just relying on the opinions of a bunch a internet clowns? As a fan of the original and the sequel who had a childhood filled with Ghostbusters toys, there is nothing about this movie that "disrespects" me or my enjoyment of the previous movies. That is the most idiotic thing I've heard.

Yes because that's exactly what I'm saying isn't it....

That's pretty much what you're saying.