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.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m especially curious, as that was the point of the fething thread in the first place.
Well, you're the OP so I would have to let you speak to the point of the thread in the first place. However, where this thread was always going to go was 20% to talking about the movie, and 80% butthurt patrol to be outraged about the "outrage".
We need to go deeper.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/28 20:02:21
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
Twitter mate, if you took the worst of both wings and threw them into a locked room, you still would not get anything near the insanity that is twitter.
True. Its that old rule of thumb - half of what we post on the internet we wouldn't dare say in person...
Twitter mate, if you took the worst of both wings and threw them into a locked room, you still would not get anything near the insanity that is twitter.
True. Its that old rule of thumb - half of what we post on the internet we wouldn't dare say in person...
“The customer is always right” doesn’t mean the customer is actually right. It just means that behaving courteously even in the face of someone throwing a temper tantrum preserves your dignity, and that of your employer, in a potentially embarassing situation.
Manchu wrote: “The customer is always right” doesn’t mean the customer is actually right. It just means that behaving courteously even in the face of someone throwing a temper tantrum preserves your dignity, and that of your employer, in a potentially embarassing situation.
No. You do not have to face anything. If someone like that is throwing a temper tantrum, you do not have to take it. I have hung up on people when they are rude or say hateful things while taking their orders. I have refused to deliver food to people based on past interactions with them(Punching a wall and yelling at me about their food being two minutes past estimated delivery time) I have walked out of rooms in hospitals while working when I was abused, trying to give care. You do not have to be abused and your employer cannot force you to take abuse. The customer is not always right and that doesn't mean you have to take abuse in any way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/28 20:29:50
None of those anecdotes involves getting back in the face of a critical customer.
If you’re advocating that studios should just not respond to criticism, OK that is probably leaving opportunity on the table but I would agree it is vastly superior to accusing your customers of being bigots.
OK, now that we've got the "Customer is right" nonsense out of the way, can someone explain why Girlbusters is the hill that Les Jones wants to die upon?
Remakes happen all of the time, but you don't see Matthew Broderick claiming that his Music Man was better than the original. Or Jaden Smith claiming that Kung Fu Kid somehow is the proper inheritor of the Karate Kid franchise.
It's like one of the crew from F4ntastic claiming that their movie should be the launching pad for a new Fanastic Four franchise.
What makes Girlbusters special or good enough to deserve continuity? It was a box office bomb that won no real awards. gak movie that doesn't deserve anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/28 21:20:31
Manchu wrote: Yeah, but maybe executives and directors never heard that thing low-level managment drums into low-level employees: the customer is always right.
I was just thinking that they must never have worked retail. Rookie mistake.
I've worked retail. The 'customer is always right' isn't true or even a useful attitude. The customer either pays money and leaves, or is an annoying pillock; management just insists that staff be two-faced about it and humor them (in public).
Exactly. They haven't learned to be two faced and humor the bad customers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: OK, now that we've got the "Customer is right" nonsense out of the way, can someone explain why Girlbusters is the hill that Les Jones wants to die upon?
]
I haven't really paid much attention to her film career so I could be wrong, but I assume this is her only hill.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/28 21:39:30
cuda1179 wrote: Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
Do you have a source for this claim? I just read 3 articles on the Forbes site (well, skimmed them) and didn't really see anything like that. The closest they came to was
It wasn’t. The reboot wasn’t clever, or funny, but bland, and the gender politics magnified the controversy, warping it into an ideological debate. And Ghostbusters is not the correct battleground for such a conversation.
It was a similar situation to what happened with The Last Jedi, in which hateful trolls were lumped in with disappointed fans, and the two groups started to exchange DNA. The discourse becomes so removed from the original point that it isolates angry, frustrated fans, who aren’t exactly the most reasonable at the best of times, prompting many to direct their anger against progressive causes.
Which was pretty insightful, and made a distinction between the fandom, and the trolls. And wasn't even about GB, to boot.
There was a different article that points out the GB3 director had had a string of flops and is failing upwards to this film, which seems both accurate and uncontroversial.
So obviously you saw something else which I didn't find.
To quote Forbes: "You're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all female sci-fi comedy." Later saying GB2016 was at least as good as the 1984 original.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I am hoping for deadpan humor set against effects that are spooky rather than IN UR FACE, at least until the third act.
I hope they throw a few jokes out there that make you think for a second before realizing it's funny, preferably stated by someone using a serious tone (AKA the 30-foot Twinkie). Also a couple cheap gross-out slapstick scenes to break the tension.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/28 22:04:16
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m especially curious, as that was the point of the fething thread in the first place.
Well, you're the OP so I would have to let you speak to the point of the thread in the first place. However, where this thread was always going to go was 20% to talking about the movie, and 80% butthurt patrol to be outraged about the "outrage".
We need to go deeper.
Deeper...into the butthurt? I'm pretty sure that isn't the solution to anything or serves any useful purpose.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/29 02:50:14
Manchu wrote: None of those anecdotes involves getting back in the face of a critical customer.
If you’re advocating that studios should just not respond to criticism, OK that is probably leaving opportunity on the table but I would agree it is vastly superior to accusing your customers of being bigots.
Oh, I told the woman who punched the wall never to call us again, we wojld not be delivering food to her and she was blacklisted, in person. I also told the man who physically assaulted me, after I defended myself, security would be up immediately and if he was found outside of his room he would be restrained for the safety of others on the floor. The woman using racial slurs on the phone I told we dont serve pieces of gap here so she may want to check with the local sewage treatment services if she was hungry.
gonna skip joining in the controversy part of the thread and just comment on what i'd maybe like to see for the movie
Original group is old, tired, and have franchised ghostbustering, so passing the touch can be the new whoever it will be crew buying in to the brand to set up shop....well, any major city really, so options abound there, and then the fun of them trying to make it doing the job they totally thought they could do, but are really bad at for a while or something. hell, you could have them comparing themselves to a crew from another city thats tv famous or something
you get the scary from the newbies trying to go after the ghosts, and the comedy from them fething up at it
cuda1179 wrote: Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
Do you have a source for this claim? I just read 3 articles on the Forbes site (well, skimmed them) and didn't really see anything like that. The closest they came to was
It wasn’t. The reboot wasn’t clever, or funny, but bland, and the gender politics magnified the controversy, warping it into an ideological debate. And Ghostbusters is not the correct battleground for such a conversation.
It was a similar situation to what happened with The Last Jedi, in which hateful trolls were lumped in with disappointed fans, and the two groups started to exchange DNA. The discourse becomes so removed from the original point that it isolates angry, frustrated fans, who aren’t exactly the most reasonable at the best of times, prompting many to direct their anger against progressive causes.
Which was pretty insightful, and made a distinction between the fandom, and the trolls. And wasn't even about GB, to boot.
There was a different article that points out the GB3 director had had a string of flops and is failing upwards to this film, which seems both accurate and uncontroversial.
So obviously you saw something else which I didn't find.
To quote Forbes: "You're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all female sci-fi comedy." Later saying GB2016 was at least as good as the 1984 original.
That doesn't seem to match what you claimed was said - that they were "trashing fans of the original series".
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
cuda1179 wrote: Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
Do you have a source for this claim? I just read 3 articles on the Forbes site (well, skimmed them) and didn't really see anything like that. The closest they came to was
It wasn’t. The reboot wasn’t clever, or funny, but bland, and the gender politics magnified the controversy, warping it into an ideological debate. And Ghostbusters is not the correct battleground for such a conversation.
It was a similar situation to what happened with The Last Jedi, in which hateful trolls were lumped in with disappointed fans, and the two groups started to exchange DNA. The discourse becomes so removed from the original point that it isolates angry, frustrated fans, who aren’t exactly the most reasonable at the best of times, prompting many to direct their anger against progressive causes.
Which was pretty insightful, and made a distinction between the fandom, and the trolls. And wasn't even about GB, to boot.
There was a different article that points out the GB3 director had had a string of flops and is failing upwards to this film, which seems both accurate and uncontroversial.
So obviously you saw something else which I didn't find.
To quote Forbes: "You're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all female sci-fi comedy." Later saying GB2016 was at least as good as the 1984 original.
That doesn't seem to match what you claimed was said - that they were "trashing fans of the original series".
When these outlets have spent three+ years writing material that paints "demographics who reacted in the very worst way" as being synonymous with "anyone who didn't like the movie and stated so publicly", I'd say it does. It's a dogwhistle.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
It also carries the bizarre implication that movies should be made in order to punish or reward social behavior rather than being made to be entertaining or profitable. That's a weird perspective.
There were one or two of the cartoon episodes that were interesting such as the Roller Coaster that came alive and Ray employs a fireman's tactic of indicating that he's there to help or something? That would make for an interesting vfx sequence while filling in for the godzilla-ghost role that the Marshmallow Man and Statue of Liberty played in the previous movies.
Thinking on it further, that would be a nice homage to the end of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms.
cuda1179 wrote: Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
Do you have a source for this claim? I just read 3 articles on the Forbes site (well, skimmed them) and didn't really see anything like that. The closest they came to was
It wasn’t. The reboot wasn’t clever, or funny, but bland, and the gender politics magnified the controversy, warping it into an ideological debate. And Ghostbusters is not the correct battleground for such a conversation.
It was a similar situation to what happened with The Last Jedi, in which hateful trolls were lumped in with disappointed fans, and the two groups started to exchange DNA. The discourse becomes so removed from the original point that it isolates angry, frustrated fans, who aren’t exactly the most reasonable at the best of times, prompting many to direct their anger against progressive causes.
Which was pretty insightful, and made a distinction between the fandom, and the trolls. And wasn't even about GB, to boot.
There was a different article that points out the GB3 director had had a string of flops and is failing upwards to this film, which seems both accurate and uncontroversial.
So obviously you saw something else which I didn't find.
To quote Forbes: "You're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all female sci-fi comedy." Later saying GB2016 was at least as good as the 1984 original.
That doesn't seem to match what you claimed was said - that they were "trashing fans of the original series".
When these outlets have spent three+ years writing material that paints "demographics who reacted in the very worst way" as being synonymous with "anyone who didn't like the movie and stated so publicly", I'd say it does. It's a dogwhistle.
So it didn't start in the last week, it actually started 3 years ago. I see, he was just mistaken on the timeframe, and that's not at all the goalposts being moved.
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
cuda1179 wrote: The same article did dump of people that wanted nostalgic sequels rather than reboots.
Ignore him dude, keep telling you lol, he knows he is just playing stupid to troll.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. This is the third or fourth time in this thread that you've claimed that, and I am tired of reporting your comments to have them removed. If you filter the thread by my name, you will see I am engaging in this thread in good faith. I have no idea what your personal problem is with me, and I don't really give a gak, but why don't you put me on ignore, or report my "trolling" to the mods, and take up more fruitful pursuits. I suggest learning the difference between an O and a Q on your keyboard: my name is only 4 characters and yet you still manage a 25% error rate without fail - remarkable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/30 00:29:22
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'm doing nothing of the sort. This is the third or fourth time in this thread that you've claimed that, and I am tired of reporting your comments to have them removed. If you filter the thread by my name, you will see I am engaging in this thread in good faith. I have no idea what your personal problem is with me, and I don't really give a gak, but why don't you put me on ignore, or report my "trolling" to the mods, and take up more fruitful pursuits. I suggest learning the difference between an O and a Q on your keyboard: my name is only 4 characters and yet you still manage a 25% error rate without fail - remarkable.
Is this what you would consider to be engaging in good faith?
However, where this thread was always going to go was 20% to talking about the movie, and 80% butthurt patrol to be outraged about the "outrage".
cuda1179 wrote: The same article did dump of people that wanted nostalgic sequels rather than reboots.
Ignore him dude, keep telling you lol, he knows he is just playing stupid to troll.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. This is the third or fourth time in this thread that you've claimed that, and I am tired of reporting your comments to have them removed. If you filter the thread by my name, you will see I am engaging in this thread in good faith. I have no idea what your personal problem is with me, and I don't really give a gak, but why don't you put me on ignore, or report my "trolling" to the mods, and take up more fruitful pursuits. I suggest learning the difference between an O and a Q on your keyboard: my name is only 4 characters and yet you still manage a 25% error rate without fail - remarkable.
I am stating that you are trolling because this and other threads you clearly know what he is talking about but are playing stupid, that to me is trolling and absolutely not good faith, and I know you know what he is talking about Ouze because you have touched on this subject many many times, but for whatever reason you are choosing to play dumb this time.
He has explained himself quite well and in context, so if you are not understanding him its because you are choosing not to, I.E trolling.
Formosa wrote: I am stating that you are trolling because this and other threads you clearly know what he is talking about but are playing stupid
I don't think I follow this topic as closely as you seem to think I do (outside of Dakka, anyway). For example, I do not have a Twitter account and never have. I certainly don't read Forbes regularly.
Again, I suggest you put me on ignore or report my "rulebreaking" posts.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/30 01:48:58
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
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
