Ghostbusters

Discuss books, film, tv, music, games and all other arts here.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Ghostbusters

#21  Postby Animavore » Mar 09, 2016 2:42 pm

New trailer with more Thor.

A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44685
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Ghostbusters

#22  Postby Animavore » Jul 20, 2016 8:03 am

So has anyone actually seen this? It seems impossible to get an unbiased opinion. On the one hand you have the haters who decided they were going to hate before it even came out; so their opinion is worthless. On the other you have the people who said they were going to watch it, sticking it to the haters; so their opinion isn't quite valid either.

This is the second movie this year this has happened (the other was BvS).
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44685
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#23  Postby Scar » Jul 20, 2016 8:26 am

Haven't seen it but from what I can gather from Youtube reviews it's an underwhelming movie full of fart and queef jokes with subpart CGI and lots of stereotypes. But most say it's watchable at least.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#24  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Jul 20, 2016 8:56 am

There was one fart/queef joke. It was the same joke.

I didn't get some (maybe a lot) of the humour because I've never seen the originals. My ex, who is a hundred years old and very familiar with the originals, thought it was an excellent reboot and saw more humour in it than I did. He may be a better reviewer than I.

My mistake was I thought it was going to be Bridesmaids funny because I saw McCarthy and Wigg in it, which it very much wasn't, so I was a bit confused. I didn't know what I was going to see. Other than that, it's well-paced. It's aesthetically pleasing. It's fun. It's got great action. It's very easy to watch (if you're not Thunderf00t, that is.)

I liked it.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13495
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#25  Postby VazScep » Jul 20, 2016 9:01 am

I went to see that film "Spy" last year. I'd just seen "Mad Max" and thought holy fuck! The cinema is awesome! Must go again!, but I ended up walking out after twenty minutes. I don't know if the director was just shit, but Jason Statham was so embarrassingly unfunny that I couldn't take it anymore.

Apparently this Ghostbusters film is by the same folk, so I'll be giving it a miss.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#26  Postby Animavore » Jul 20, 2016 9:22 am

I thought Spy was hilarious.

Ghostbusters looks like Paul Feig for kids. Without the really smutty stuff of his R-rated movies I feel it will be a watered down affair.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44685
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#27  Postby tuco » Jul 20, 2016 9:29 am

VazScep wrote:The cinema is awesome! Must go again!


lol

Was around when the original had its minutes of fame (movie, song, games, t-shirts) and have not found it all that great then. The only thing appealing to me about this one could be CGI and jokes or going with kids.
tuco
 
Posts: 15544

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Ghostbusters

#28  Postby Briton » Jul 20, 2016 10:04 am

Seen a few clips obviously but I've never felt the desire to watch any Ghostbusters movie.
User avatar
Briton
 
Posts: 4022

Country: UK
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#29  Postby Briton » Jul 20, 2016 10:09 am

Animavore wrote:So has anyone actually seen this? It seems impossible to get an unbiased opinion. On the one hand you have the haters who decided they were going to hate before it even came out; so their opinion is worthless. On the other you have the people who said they were going to watch it, sticking it to the haters; so their opinion isn't quite valid either.

This is the second movie this year this has happened (the other was BvS).


Quite an interesting slant on that when John Ladarola compares the Ghostbusters thing to attitudes towards Hillary Clinton. From 3:45.

User avatar
Briton
 
Posts: 4022

Country: UK
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#30  Postby WayOfTheDodo » Jul 20, 2016 8:04 pm

Briton wrote:
Animavore wrote:So has anyone actually seen this? It seems impossible to get an unbiased opinion. On the one hand you have the haters who decided they were going to hate before it even came out; so their opinion is worthless. On the other you have the people who said they were going to watch it, sticking it to the haters; so their opinion isn't quite valid either.

This is the second movie this year this has happened (the other was BvS).


Quite an interesting slant on that when John Ladarola compares the Ghostbusters thing to attitudes towards Hillary Clinton. From 3:45.


It's a pretty crappy point. Plenty of people have torn this movie a new asshole without being racist.

On the other hand, the movie seems to be extremely racist as well as full of hatred towards men.

The comparison works much better on a different level: Just like Hillary Clinton and her supporters and staff attack critics by labeling them as misogynists, people are attempting to label critics of the apparently crappy new GB movie misogynists as well. Neither of these can handle the actual valid criticism, so they resort to attacking critics by labeling them and strawmanning them to hell and back.

Clinton doesn't suck because she's a woman. She sucks because of her crappy policies.

GB doesn't suck because the lead cast are all women. It sucks because it's a badly done movie. It gets worse because they took the GB brand and produced a crappy flick with extremely primitive humor and crappy acting which shits all over the original.
User avatar
WayOfTheDodo
 
Name: Raphus Cucullatus
Posts: 2096

Mauritius (mu)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#31  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Jul 20, 2016 9:29 pm

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
GB doesn't suck because the lead cast are all women. It sucks because it's a badly done movie. It gets worse because they took the GB brand and produced a crappy flick with extremely primitive humor and crappy acting which shits all over the original.

You could say the same thing about Ghostbusters II.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#32  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Jul 21, 2016 1:43 am

You could say the same thing about the original Ghostbusters.

I just watched it and, based on the little men weeping uncontrollably and harrassing women off the internet, I expected a cinematic masterpiece. It wasn't a good film. It was fun and it was good enough. It wasn't a legitimately good film though.

WTF all these MGTOWs and MRAs are whinging about (other than their dislike of girls), having their childhoods shit on but an imperfect movie belonging to the Ghostbusters franchise, I don't fucking know. It wasn't a brilliant film the first time 'round. Their memory is shoddy if they think otherwise.

My understanding is Ghostbusters II is just flat-out bad.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13495
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#33  Postby WayOfTheDodo » Jul 21, 2016 5:54 am

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:You could say the same thing about the original Ghostbusters.

I just watched it and, based on the little men weeping uncontrollably and harrassing women off the internet, I expected a cinematic masterpiece. It wasn't a good film. It was fun and it was good enough. It wasn't a legitimately good film though.

WTF all these MGTOWs and MRAs are whinging about (other than their dislike of girls), having their childhoods shit on but an imperfect movie belonging to the Ghostbusters franchise, I don't fucking know. It wasn't a brilliant film the first time 'round. Their memory is shoddy if they think otherwise.

My understanding is Ghostbusters II is just flat-out bad.

You don't seem to get it. The problem isn't that the main cast are women. The problems are with the movie itself. Stop fucking lying about who's hating this abomination of a reboot.

Even if you personally don't like the original that doesn't change the fact that you are trying to deflect criticism of the reboot by lying about why people are hating it.
User avatar
WayOfTheDodo
 
Name: Raphus Cucullatus
Posts: 2096

Mauritius (mu)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#34  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jul 21, 2016 6:38 am

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:You could say the same thing about the original Ghostbusters.

I just watched it and, based on the little men weeping uncontrollably and harrassing women off the internet, I expected a cinematic masterpiece. It wasn't a good film. It was fun and it was good enough. It wasn't a legitimately good film though.

WTF all these MGTOWs and MRAs are whinging about (other than their dislike of girls), having their childhoods shit on but an imperfect movie belonging to the Ghostbusters franchise, I don't fucking know. It wasn't a brilliant film the first time 'round. Their memory is shoddy if they think otherwise.

My understanding is Ghostbusters II is just flat-out bad.

Not really a Ghostbusters fan though I did watch it a bunch as a kid. Just recently re-watched it for the first time in a couple decades. No cinematic masterpiece, but I think it deserves better than "good enough" -- the effects were really cool, and aside from Bill Murray being a putz I thought Rick Moranis was very good/funny, I very much liked how straight Ramis played his character. It was lots of fun to watch the EPA guy get shit on, and I thought Janine was very funny and well played. Definitely not a bust-a-gut movie, but there's some great lines and it helps if you like SCTV. I also appreciated how dark the visuals are.

The new one, on the other hand, looks like an incredibly unfunny, neon piece of crap judging from the previews. I'll know for sure when I end up seeing it some day. Haven't rewatched 2, but I remember it being a passable meh with some mildly funny moments. Again, these memories are a couple decades old.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#35  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Jul 21, 2016 6:47 am

It's no more unfunny than the original, which isn't hilarious nor do I think it was supposed to be. It's visually flashier because effects are flashier. It's just the original imagery augmented.

I definitely don't think Ghostbusters deserves any better than a good enough rating, though I bet it's fucking terrific when you're high or fourteen. It's a lot of fun but it's not a good film. Eighties kids who have deified the film are just trapped in the "Good Old Days" mindset. They enjoy it because they enjoyed it when they were kids, not because its good.

There was never anything brilliant or even particularly funny about Dan Akroyd getting a blowjob from a ghost. The fact of the matter is Ghostbusters wasn't a good film. It was a fun, stupid film deserving of a lot more criticism than it gets from its cult following whose perception it is horribly bias.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13495
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Ghostbusters

#36  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jul 21, 2016 6:56 am

I've only got the previews to go by mind, but literally every single joke in them falls completely flat. I'm guessing there's better stuff in the actual film?

I think you're right that the original wasn't supposed to be hilarious, though there are a couple great, well executed gags. Like I said, it's kinda dark. I don't really get that from the previews of the new one, it seems like joke-a-second for 7 year olds. So I guess if the original is aimed at 14 year olds, it's got a leg up there :mrgreen:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#37  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jul 21, 2016 7:01 am

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:
There was never anything brilliant or even particularly funny about Dan Akroyd getting a blowjob from a ghost. The fact of the matter is Ghostbusters wasn't a good film. It was a fun, stupid film deserving of a lot more criticism than it gets from its cult following whose perception it is horribly bias.

I didn't even get the ghost fellatio thing, it didn't make any sense. Was he supposed to be dreaming it? I couldn't tell. There's a couple crappy things like that, but that makes it a bad movie? I think your bias is showing there.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#38  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Jul 21, 2016 2:44 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:
There was never anything brilliant or even particularly funny about Dan Akroyd getting a blowjob from a ghost. The fact of the matter is Ghostbusters wasn't a good film. It was a fun, stupid film deserving of a lot more criticism than it gets from its cult following whose perception it is horribly bias.

I didn't even get the ghost fellatio thing, it didn't make any sense. Was he supposed to be dreaming it? I couldn't tell. There's a couple crappy things like that, but that makes it a bad movie? I think your bias is showing there.

I think she's saying it wasn't a great film. This is not the same as saying it's a bad film. I first watched it as a kid, so I can't say. I loved it and that first love probably carries over as bias into my adult life- even though I don't pee with my friends and "cross the streams" any more.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#39  Postby VazScep » Jul 21, 2016 3:00 pm

ScholasticSpastic wrote:I think she's saying it wasn't a great film. This is not the same as saying it's a bad film. I first watched it as a kid, so I can't say. I loved it and that first love probably carries over as bias into my adult life- even though I don't pee with my friends and "cross the streams" any more.
Ah, I dunno. There were films I loved as a kid, but as an adult I happily admit are utter shite. Ghostbusters became cult, somehow. I'm not sure why, and I've joined a few (They Live is pretty much the greatest film ever made). You gotta be careful with that stuff.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Ghostbusters

#40  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jul 21, 2016 3:09 pm

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:
There was never anything brilliant or even particularly funny about Dan Akroyd getting a blowjob from a ghost. The fact of the matter is Ghostbusters wasn't a good film. It was a fun, stupid film deserving of a lot more criticism than it gets from its cult following whose perception it is horribly bias.

I didn't even get the ghost fellatio thing, it didn't make any sense. Was he supposed to be dreaming it? I couldn't tell. There's a couple crappy things like that, but that makes it a bad movie? I think your bias is showing there.

I think she's saying it wasn't a great film. This is not the same as saying it's a bad film. I first watched it as a kid, so I can't say. I loved it and that first love probably carries over as bias into my adult life- even though I don't pee with my friends and "cross the streams" any more.

She said a few times that it's not good, which sounds like bad to me. Re-watching it, there was a bunch of moments where Bill Murray made me wince, even if you consider those parts as making fun of the sort of person he is. I honestly didn't even know there were people who were still huge fans of Ghostbusters until all this hullabaloo happened over the new one. I think it's a notable film for its time because of the cool effects if nothing else, but that people seem to love it so much kinda boggles my mind :dopey:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to The Arts & Entertainment

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest