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.

Except that Ouze totally is.

Sony absolutely bought into the hater = bigot thing, so arguing without accepting that is the same as ignoring that the earth is round. Just as the Flat Earthers exist as card-carrying trolls (the FE Society will send you an official membership card for a nominal fee), Ouze is obviously trolling, and he is trolling when he claims ignorance.

You can take John's word to the bank. He is real familiar with what a troll looks like, he sees one every time he looks in a mirror.

Alright, please leave the personal attacks at the door.

We can talk about our opinions without calling wach other trolls.

Do we really need this sequel?

“Need’ is a strong word for any movie.

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t think Ouze is trolling.

But, Ouze, are you arguing there has not been a strategy on the part of, for example, Sony to spin legitimate criticism of the movie as bigotry?

Let me answer this in an odd order.

I will say that when Leslie Jones expressed frustration over the franchise not continuing, I didn't see it in as machiavellian of a light as you did. I thought she was just honestly frustrated, not seeking a way to drum up publicity; but I will allow that perhaps that is naive of me as well. Maybe she felt like she especially bled for the movie since her nudes got hacked as a likely response to it, so seeing it all have been for nothing must have been especially galling. I will again reiterate that being mad that they chose not to continue a franchise that lost $70 million at the box office is pretty dumb, she should have known there wouldn't be a sequel about 2 weeks after the movie came out.

But I would seperate that out from a film studio trying their best to polish what they must have known early on was a turd. I don't know that there has or has not been a media management strategy to build up the negative comments as a way of framing seeing the movie as a way against... fighting trolls or whatever, but I wouldn't discount it either. I think one of you guys said something about manipulating youtube comments? Amy Pascal seems like a pretty lousy person so I can't give her much benefit of the doubt.

There is genuinely the weirdest hatred of this movie though, and that more than anything else I don't think I will ever really understand. For all the rage that was, or wasn't, spun by the studio it seems like there is a genuine vein of it in every one of these discussions not very far from the surface.

 Formosa wrote:
As long as it has the original cast as leads im in, if its anything like the 2016 one im out

So, you're hoping for a return of Harold Ramis as a CGI ghost?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
As long as it has the original cast as leads im in, if its anything like the 2016 one im out

So, you're hoping for a return of Harold Ramis as a CGI ghost?

They did it for Star Wars, Tarkin and Leia...
I hope they don't, Uncanny Valley was a long way down for them.

CGI ghosts are almost always tasteless :(

Honestly they could probably make it work pretty well I think. The Ghostbuster ghosts were never totally photo realistic to start, so they could make a caricature of him that avoids the uncanny valley problem by simply embracing it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t think Ouze is trolling.

But, Ouze, are you arguing there has not been a strategy on the part of, for example, Sony to spin legitimate criticism of the movie as bigotry?

Let me answer this in an odd order.

I will say that when Leslie Jones expressed frustration over the franchise not continuing, I didn't see it in as machiavellian of a light as you did. I thought she was just honestly frustrated, not seeking a way to drum up publicity; but I will allow that perhaps that is naive of me as well. Maybe she felt like she especially bled for the movie since her nudes got hacked as a likely response to it, so seeing it all have been for nothing must have been especially galling. I will again reiterate that being mad that they chose not to continue a franchise that lost $70 million at the box office is pretty dumb, she should have known there wouldn't be a sequel about 2 weeks after the movie came out.

But I would seperate that out from a film studio trying their best to polish what they must have known early on was a turd. I don't know that there has or has not been a media management strategy to build up the negative comments as a way of framing seeing the movie as a way against... fighting trolls or whatever, but I wouldn't discount it either. I think one of you guys said something about manipulating youtube comments? Amy Pascal seems like a pretty lousy person so I can't give her much benefit of the doubt.

There is genuinely the weirdest hatred of this movie though, and that more than anything else I don't think I will ever really understand. For all the rage that was, or wasn't, spun by the studio it seems like there is a genuine vein of it in every one of these discussions not very far from the surface.

I think a noticeable amount of the hate the movie got wasn't really because of the movie, but because the studio lashed out at fans. Let's say I were a street artist and I drew a bad piece of art. If people said, "dang, that's bad", and I yelled at them " you only hate it because I'm a Jew!!! ", well I'd likely have more people mad at me and my art than the all ready bad critique it deserves.

 Ouze wrote:


There is genuinely the weirdest hatred of this movie though, and that more than anything else I don't think I will ever really understand. For all the rage that was, or wasn't, spun by the studio it seems like there is a genuine vein of it in every one of these discussions not very far from the surface.

Don't presume to read people's minds. If someone is raising rational points of criticism for the movie or for the narrative of toxic fandom, and you decide to read from that an emotional motivation that is not clear in a textual manner, then you are not engaging in good faith. In this particular thread, the topic would not have come up at all if a couple of users didn't immediately begin making predictions of horrific behavior against the cast based on the word of the studio and entertainment media. Nearly everyone who expressed their opinions about the 2016 movie just said that it was disappointingly bad, and if I'm not mistaken I believe that all of us share that sentiment. If there is a consensus that the movie was not good, and you have people dispassionately expressing that opinion, it doesn't make sense to infer from that some kind of ulterior motive.

Haven't you yourself said that the movie was bad, in much the same language as anyone else? If so, your criteria for believing that someone is irrationally hateful about it is not that they express the same opinion, but that they object to the narrative that they are irrationally hateful about it. So you've set a standard whereby protesting your innocence about something makes you guilty, and the only way to avoid the accusation of guilt is not to speak up or question the narrative of toxic fandom. That's the kind of thinking behind witch trials and inquisitions.

Boy, this really escalated with that last bit there.

No, I say that based upon the related context. For example, the Youtube trailer is (or at least was iirc) the most disliked video in Youtube history. That's some really abnormal action right there for a movie that really didn't seem to warrant it. Bad as it was I would say The Predator was clearly worse.

I don't remember the exact time line of events, but if the studio and media were lashing out at fans then you could easily assume there would be backlash against the trailer itself. In any case, you claimed that this type of hatred was "under the surface" right here on Dakka. My point is that you can't just assume that based on the reaction to the trailer, and ascribe motivations to individual users here without any other logical reason to do so. It may seem like an exaggeration to say that type of thought leads to witch trials, but it's true even if you're not out lighting pyres in a literal sense. You can't just assume that people have heresy in their hearts because they're not publicly displaying their faith.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think a noticeable amount of the hate the movie got wasn't really because of the movie, but because the studio lashed out at fans.

Let's say I were a street artist and I drew a bad piece of art. If people said, "dang, that's bad", and I yelled at them " you only hate it because I'm a Jew!!! ",

I'd likely have more people mad at me and my art than the all ready bad critique it deserves.

That's basically it, except that your street art is actually graffiti spray-painted over an existing mural, and all of your homeless friends are screaming that "anybody who doesn't love your street art is a fething Nazi!", equating anyone who loved the mural as a Nazi.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

That's basically it, except that your street art is actually graffiti spray-painted over an existing mural, and all of your homeless friends are screaming that "anybody who doesn't love your street art is a fething Nazi!", equating anyone who loved the mural as a Nazi.

There's a very easy way to test whether or not this is a logical conclusion.

Do people hate Paul Feig comedies with all-female casts?
No, they're extremely popular and successful.

Do people hate sci-fi movies with female leads?
No, some of the most beloved films of all time feature female leads who are revered and iconic characters.

Do people hate it when a popular franchise is used as window dressing for a Paul Feig comedy, and fans are told that they're bigots if that's not what they already knew they always wanted?
Obviously.

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't remember the exact time line of events, but if the studio and media were lashing out at fans then you could easily assume there would be backlash against the trailer itself. In any case, you claimed that this type of hatred was "under the surface" right here on Dakka. My point is that you can't just assume that based on the reaction to the trailer, and ascribe motivations to individual users here without any other logical reason to do so. It may seem like an exaggeration to say that type of thought leads to witch trials, but it's true even if you're not out lighting pyres in a literal sense. You can't just assume that people have heresy in their hearts because they're not publicly displaying their faith.

The gakstorm started around the time the cast was announced, well before the trailer.

Even the most radical of people can act polite and dignified when their guards are up. It's once they feel comfortable that their language slips and the beast is unleashed.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except that Ouze totally is.

Sony absolutely bought into the hater = bigot thing, so arguing without accepting that is the same as ignoring that the earth is round. Just as the Flat Earthers exist as card-carrying trolls (the FE Society will send you an official membership card for a nominal fee), Ouze is obviously trolling, and he is trolling when he claims ignorance.

In Sony's defense, so much of the hate was directed at the very concept of the film without anyone really seeing it, it wasn't exactly the most unreasonable assumption to make. Not that there wasn't plenty from the trailer to be skeptical about, but the hate was definitely a bit above the level of an iffy trailer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greenskin lynn wrote:

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

Given this is a premise set up in the first movie, its definitely a good direction to go.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

The gakstorm started around the time the cast was announced, well before the trailer.

Even the most radical of people can act polite and dignified when their guards are up. It's once they feel comfortable that their language slips and the beast is unleashed.

You're just engaging in the same kind of inquisitorial logic I was talking about, ever vigilant for signs of heresy that you suspect lies in wait behind the placid facade of your fellow man. I mean, just look at the language you are using.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
As long as it has the original cast as leads im in, if its anything like the 2016 one im out

So, you're hoping for a return of Harold Ramis as a CGI ghost?

That would actually be an interesting idea for the entire movie. CGI "humans" do have their place - Klu from Tron: Legacy( he already exists in a digital world ) and a younger Leia at the end of Rogue One to be a foil to Darth Vader and to flow into ANH. Like Klu, Egon would already be accepted as a visual effect character if he was to be a ghost, and in that form he could be one to help progress the story by feeding information to his living colleagues. With the deepest of respect to Harold, Egon's passing could also be an opportunity for a bit of...black comedy, where one of his experiments goes very wrong, but when he finds himself on the other side hes like "Oh. Well at least we know that doesnt work" or something to that effect.

Also, if the remaining cast wants to put their characters to rest, then maybe they have to do something towards the end where they have to enter the "spirit world" and join Egon to put things right...and its a one-way ticket. So long as they keep the translucient effect with a very good voice artist, I really see merit in that idea.

I personally love the big pushes to bring a digital human to life on the big screen, but for it to work there has to be a genuine reason for it. Rogue One is a great example of both when to use a digital double and when not to...

Carrie Fisher( we miss you terribly! ) was too mature to pass for her younger self, but with the forces of darkness having their champion, Darth Vader, present in the finale it was only right to see his counterpart to represent the forces of light - "hope" as it were. It was for a moment only and in it we are like "OMG! YOUNG LEIA!" to deliver a quick word and then "iris-out" to the credits. It didn't outstay its welcome...

Personally, it was great to see "Peter Cushing" on the big screen and felt they had done him as best as technology and art will allow. However, with Krennic essentially being a stand in character he could have just reported to Vader, with Vader threatening to reveal his incompetence to the Emperor and Tarkin. Tarkin has too much screen time to accept as a real actor and unlike Klu in T:L he just doesn't have anything to help suspend the disbelief. At best, Tarkin could have been used as sparingly as Leia...

Sorry to bang on, but I find your idea fascinating...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:


Bad as it was I would say The Predator was clearly worse.

Now that is a shame because I really enjoyed that movie! But thats okay, if it weren't your cup of tea, then thats cool beans.

I think Predator was better than GB16. They’re both stupid, but Predator still entertained as an action movie, while I didn’t find GB really at all funny.

 AduroT wrote:
I think Predator was better than GB16. They’re both stupid, but Predator still entertained as an action movie, while I didn’t find GB really at all funny.

To be fair the extended cut does have some fun moments; the dorky "protect the barrier!" school presentation and the emergency services being forced to dance against their will come to mind.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

The gakstorm started around the time the cast was announced, well before the trailer.

Even the most radical of people can act polite and dignified when their guards are up. It's once they feel comfortable that their language slips and the beast is unleashed.

You're just engaging in the same kind of inquisitorial logic I was talking about, ever vigilant for signs of heresy that you suspect lies in wait behind the placid facade of your fellow man. I mean, just look at the language you are using.

You don't have to be vigilant. Let someone talk long enough and the racism and sexism slip out. Hell, now and days people are proud of it.

I thought Ghostbusters merely sucked, I left The Predator mad.

It wasn't terrible all the way through (although there were always rich veins of mediocrity flowing throughout, some scenese were indeed entertaining - I loved the "thumbs-up' on the bus for sure) but man, that post-credits scene just took a giant steamy dook on the whole mythos.

 Ouze wrote:
I thought Ghostbusters merely sucked, I left The Predator mad.

I have a hard time fathoming that Ghostbusters 2016 can be anywhere near as bad as The Predator. The Predator was bad in every way I think a movie can be bad and it's the only movie I can think of like that.

It's like there's "awful" and then there's "The Predator."

I have to agree with that. While I disliked Ghostbusters due to the Studio and the fact the film was poor..

Man the Predator was just bad. And it's supposed to be Canon as well I think?

I’ll also chime in agreeing that Predator was worse, although that is no rehabilitation of GB2016 whatsoever.

All the studios are after the franchise money and no matter how warn a property is there is someone out there going to try to make a dollar off it. The sad truth is studios now don't care about the movies, they want
the toy-line tie in, with restaurants buying the rights to the movie, etc. Just like the mummy was to kick off the "dark universe".. They needed to make sure the movie is good before thinking it would kick off a franchise.
But with a franchise they can plan on butts in the seats for each move.. you would think they would want to do right and make sure the movie is good.. but just look at the past few years that we had movies
that was start one or continue one.. and they didn't live up to anything..Mummy, Predator, Ghost buster 2016, Last Jedi and many move. They all where not good movies, and relied heavily on the existing property to get people
to go see it. If the studio just made that movie without anything linked to it.. they could ask.. is this a good movie??

I haven't seen the Predator, but I agree with the sentiment that none of the remakes or reboots in the recent cultural wasteland have been very good. It just brings me back to the question I asked earlier. How long are people going to keep paying to see these movies?

I'm going to do my part and skip this one.

 Luciferian wrote:
I haven't seen the Predator, but I agree with the sentiment that none of the remakes or reboots in the recent cultural wasteland have been very good. It just brings me back to the question I asked earlier. How long are people going to keep paying to see these movies?

I'm going to do my part and skip this one.

The Predator is a sequel and feels like its aim is to celebrate the previous movies rather than replace or compete with them. There are nods to all three previous films and even sets itself aside by being a bit of an A-Team tribute.

I won't lie, its not Citizen Kane but at least a good laugh.