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.

The contents of his post requires no assumptions. His opinion about the movie is based on negative reviews he sought out to validate his opinion. Which is framed in the context of people who liked it were mentally defective or social justice warriors.

You're defending a bad post because you agree with it. Not because you have the moral high ground.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The contents of his post requires no assumptions. His opinion about the movie is based on negative reviews he sought out to validate his opinion. Which is framed in the context of people who liked it were mentally defective or social justice warriors.

You're defending a bad post because you agree with it. Not because you have the moral high ground.

Again, more assumptions on your part. As I see we've moved past the point of actual discussion, I'm gonna bow out now. Thanks for playing.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Again, more assumptions on your part. As I see we've moved past the point of actual discussion, I'm gonna bow out now. Thanks for playing.

You were OK when the other guy assumed that the target audience for the movie were childlike simpletons, though. It seems like you're OK with some unfounded assumptions.

Anyway, The worst part of this movie wasn't the indifferent acting or the waste of perfectly good cameos, but the constant reminders from the internet at large about the sick streak that runs through geek culture in the US.

I can't wait until we can move on to some other topic that will remind me that a great many loathsome people happen to enjoy a lot of the same stuff that I do.

 Ouze wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Again, more assumptions on your part. As I see we've moved past the point of actual discussion, I'm gonna bow out now. Thanks for playing.

You were OK when the other guy assumed that the target audience for the movie were childlike simpletons, though. It seems like you're OK with some unfounded assumptions.

Anyway, The worst part of this movie wasn't the indifferent acting or the waste of perfectly good cameos, but the constant reminders from the internet at large about the sick streak that runs through geek culture in the US.

I can't wait until we can move on to some other topic that will remind me that a great many loathsome people happen to enjoy a lot of the same stuff that I do.

I am not the first person to say that the target audience was childlike simpletons. The WOMEN reviewing the movie whom I based most of my opinions on my ultimate decision on weather to watch the movie or not were. And I somehow doubt you were the intended audience. Based upon Feig's own statements (who more or less said SJWs WERE his target audience).

While I've mentioned my thoughts on the film a few times in this thread (in short, 'not my bag'), I am very much reminded of a certain quote whenever I read most discussions on 'SJWs.'

I'm not entirely sure if this is the right one I was thinking of but it had the same sentiment.

Joseph Scrimshaw wrote:Trying to insult someone by calling them a Social Justice Warrior is like getting in their face and yelling, "You're a decent human being!"

If something was aimed at a different audience, and someone is not part of that audience, then why would they complain about not liking that thing to begin with?

That's like me complaining about the programming on MTV.

 d-usa wrote:
If something was aimed at a different audience, and someone is not part of that audience, then why would they complain about not liking that thing to begin with?

This.

I saw it, wasn't made for me and it was very *meh*.... but, I can see the appeal to target audiences.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't get the SJW-y feel to it...

That's like me complaining about the programming on MTV.

Don't get me started on this... when they went "Real World", it went downhill.


I missed the music days, headbanger's ball and smattering of shows (bevis and butthead).

 whembly wrote:
[I missed the music days, headbanger's ball and smattering of shows (bevis and butthead).

Well, I have some good news for you....

The wife and I saw the movie today. We both enjoyed it, we both laughed, and all told it was a fun, forgettable summer movie.

Happily my childhood is still intact despite the existence of this movie.

 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.

the 80's was the greatest decade ever for movies. Oddly enough, ghostbusters made the top of this list, which probably led to this new reboot. I'm not sure why you're hating on the 80's but almost all the top 50 in that list are still watchable and enjoyable and consider some of the greatest movies ever made. I have no idea how footlose made the top of the list, but other than that it's a solid list.

Most Popular Feature Films Released 1980-01-01 to 1989-12-31
http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1980,1989&title_type=feature

I wasn't going to post here, just wanted to see what people thought of the new film, but I couldn't let you dis the 80.

There is no greatest decade ever for movies, feth the clock and nostalgia in general. Every generation has great stuff (and mostly mediocre stuff as well as some genuinely awful thrown into the mix).

“I believe that we, that this planet, hasn't seen its Golden Age. Everybody says its finished ... art's finished, rock and roll is dead, God is dead. feth that! This is my chance in the world. I didn't live back there in Mesopotamia, I wasn't there in the Garden of Eden, I wasn't there with Emperor
Han, I'm right here right now and I want now to be the Golden Age ...if only each generation would realise that the time for greatness is right now when they're alive ... the time to flower is now.”

- Patti Smith

sirlynchmob wrote:
the 80's was the greatest decade ever for movies.

No, it really wasn't.

Oddly enough, ghostbusters made the top of this list, which probably led to this new reboot. I'm not sure why you're hating on the 80's but almost all the top 50 in that list are still watchable and enjoyable and consider some of the greatest movies ever made. I have no idea how footlose made the top of the list, but other than that it's a solid list.

Most Popular Feature Films Released 1980-01-01 to 1989-12-31
http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1980,1989&title_type=feature

It's a list of popular movies from the 80s, not a list of popular movies of all time (besides, popular =\= good). If you had bothered to follow anything else I wrote you would know that I said there are plenty of good movies from the 1980s, including my favorite movie of all time, The Empire Strikes Back. The point is that on a whole, the 1980s was a very weak decade of movies made more apparent by the fact that it followed pretty much the greatest decade of movies.

I wasn't going to post here, just wanted to see what people thought of the new film, but I couldn't let you dis the 80.

I'm "dissing" the 80s, merely point out that it wasn't that great. Also, the new Ghostbusters was a fun, albeit forgettable action comedy.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the 80's was the greatest decade ever for movies.

No, it really wasn't.

Oddly enough, ghostbusters made the top of this list, which probably led to this new reboot. I'm not sure why you're hating on the 80's but almost all the top 50 in that list are still watchable and enjoyable and consider some of the greatest movies ever made. I have no idea how footlose made the top of the list, but other than that it's a solid list.

Most Popular Feature Films Released 1980-01-01 to 1989-12-31
http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1980,1989&title_type=feature

It's a list of popular movies from the 80s, not a list of popular movies of all time (besides, popular =\= good). If you had bothered to follow anything else I wrote you would know that I said there are plenty of good movies from the 1980s, including my favorite movie of all time, The Empire Strikes Back. The point is that on a whole, the 1980s was a very weak decade of movies made more apparent by the fact that it followed pretty much the greatest decade of movies.

I wasn't going to post here, just wanted to see what people thought of the new film, but I couldn't let you dis the 80.

I'm "dissing" the 80s, merely point out that it wasn't that great. Also, the new Ghostbusters was a fun, albeit forgettable action comedy.

First off, the 80's was great. Sure, you can argue it was different or not to your tastes, but a lot of great things came out of it. Second, can we stop this decade vs. decade argument? It's irrelevant to comparing these movies.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the 80's was the greatest decade ever for movies.

No, it really wasn't.

Oddly enough, ghostbusters made the top of this list, which probably led to this new reboot. I'm not sure why you're hating on the 80's but almost all the top 50 in that list are still watchable and enjoyable and consider some of the greatest movies ever made. I have no idea how footlose made the top of the list, but other than that it's a solid list.

Most Popular Feature Films Released 1980-01-01 to 1989-12-31
http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1980,1989&title_type=feature

It's a list of popular movies from the 80s, not a list of popular movies of all time (besides, popular =\= good). If you had bothered to follow anything else I wrote you would know that I said there are plenty of good movies from the 1980s, including my favorite movie of all time, The Empire Strikes Back. The point is that on a whole, the 1980s was a very weak decade of movies made more apparent by the fact that it followed pretty much the greatest decade of movies.

I wasn't going to post here, just wanted to see what people thought of the new film, but I couldn't let you dis the 80.

I'm "dissing" the 80s, merely point out that it wasn't that great. Also, the new Ghostbusters was a fun, albeit forgettable action comedy.

the 70's were as forgettable as this move.
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top
out of this top 250 movies of all times, the 70's came in with 20. Like you said, the 70's had few good movies but it was a horrible decade for movies.

http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1970,1979&title_type=feature
here's the greatest movies of the 70's from the same source as I used for the 80s. #1, the godfather, a clearly deserved win, #2 Pete's dragon. Yep, I think that sums it up nicely

the 80's have 29 in the top 250, and 20 in the top 200.

to bring it back on topic, speaking of feminist movies, the 80's gave us aliens, and terminator, clearly proving that women can be great action hero's and still make an historic movie loved by neckbeards to this very day. where as ghostbusters made for femisinists gets called "forgettable" and "meh" from people on this site who've seen it. If you set out to make a great movie, you can make a great movie no matter who the lead is. If you spend more time trying to cater to a very small demographic at the expense of the movie, it comes out as forgettable.

I was debating seeing it, but after reading what you've guys have said about it, I'll pass.

Staying off topic, to me (using the IMDB search thingy) it looks like the best decade for movies was from 1975 - 1985. The best movies from the 70's generally seem to be in the last half of the decade, best of the 80's from the first half.

http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1975,1985&title_type=feature

Interesting.

Let's not continue off topic here - please?

Feel free to continue the FILMS BY DECADE conversation in a separate thread.

Thanks!

A gentle bump with some new information on the DVD/Blu Ray release of Ghostbusters (2016).

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ghostbusters-being-released-dvd-under-141100457.html

The most talked-about movie of the summer, Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters, made $217.7 million worldwide on a $144 million budget. But it’s still on track to lose over $70 million, mostly in marketing (those Key Lime Slime Twinkies ain’t cheap). An expansion of the Ghostbusters universe (Ghostbusters fight ghosts… in space?!), including an animated movie and TV show, is still in the works, but plans for a sequel have been scrapped. There’s hope for more Kate McKinnon, though, if Ghostbusters is a huge home video success. Except, it’s not actually called Ghostbusters anymore. The film will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. That’s not quite going from Edge of Tomorrow to Live. Die. Repeat., but it’s still an unusual move.

Here are the details:

–Ghostbusters: Answer the Call Extended Edition & Theatrical Version
-4 Unearthed deleted scenes -11 Totally Possessed Alternate Scenes and more than 60 minutes of additional extended and alternate scenes with Ultraviolet download -6 Jokes-A-Plenty alternate take reels -5 Supernatural Featurettes -2 Hysterically Haunting Gag Reels
And a Slimer in a hot dog tree.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call — which is probably what it should have been called along; it’s easier than saying, “I’m not talking about the 1984 Ghostbusters, I mean the 2016 Ghostbusters” — will be released on Digital HD on September 27, and Blu-Ray and DVD on October 11.

So, the movie is getting re-titled and a sequel has been cancelled. Thoughts on the re-naming? Renaming the movie when a franchise of theatrical sequels aren't in the works seems odd to me. Re-naming the movie would actually make more sense to me if sequels were coming since the re-branding could take the franchise in a new direction and distance itself from the original movies. But that ain't happening so why change the title now?

*shrug*

A lot of what has been involved with this movie has been one head scratcher after another so I guess what is one more odd decision?

Honestly I prefer the new title as it helps distinguish it from the original.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Honestly I prefer the new title as it helps distinguish it from the original.

This is probably the main reason, so people don't have to search "Ghostbusters 2016" on Amazon

 Compel wrote:
While I've mentioned my thoughts on the film a few times in this thread (in short, 'not my bag'), I am very much reminded of a certain quote whenever I read most discussions on 'SJWs.'

I'm not entirely sure if this is the right one I was thinking of but it had the same sentiment.

Joseph Scrimshaw wrote:Trying to insult someone by calling them a Social Justice Warrior is like getting in their face and yelling, "You're a decent human being!"

It's more a rib on them of what they're trying to do. It's not really bad that women are in movies or things so much that forcing them in there en masse for an agenda is kinda crappy and let's be honest that's exactly what news, companies and hollywood has done. Probably much so more than the people themselves.

Also Compel if what you say is true why does the supposed PC crowd or SJWs take such offense to the term? You'd think if they get insulted by a term to say they're nice then that's a real description for how offended they can truly be.

I will say i didn't mind the Star Trek movie. I think that was done right. They didn't really force Sulu being gay down our throats though i do think they made Sulu shine a little too much during the movie. It seems less Sulu is gay to 'Was sulu really that important in the original Star Trek?' Honestly i don't know but i heard he wasn't.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Honestly I prefer the new title as it helps distinguish it from the original.

This is probably the main reason, so people don't have to search "Ghostbusters 2016" on Amazon

I can see that being one of the advantages of the name change, but I can't imagine early on in the film's development people didn't voice concern over confusion between the 1984 Ghostbusters and what would become the 2016 Ghostbusters, and yet The Powers That Be still went with just "Ghostbusters" for the 2016 title. Based off that development, sparing audiences confusion doesn't seem like the whole reason, or even a primary reason, for the name change. Or maybe I just want to read more into this than is actually there.

Just spit balling, but I think Ghostbusters will go the way of Spider Man and get frequent reboots until one sticks and this renaming of the 2016 film is a way to keep the Ghostbusters name "pure" in the meanwhile.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Just spit balling, but I think Ghostbusters will go the way of Spider Man and get frequent reboots until one sticks and this renaming of the 2016 film is a way to keep the Ghostbusters name "pure" in the meanwhile.

Yup. It draws a line under it, in a "this was an abject and humiliating failure, so let's move on" kind of way. The whole debacle looks like it's quietly being swept under the rug, and in a few years people will look back and cringe.