Seems like a good movie that got hit with bad marketing and awful responses to the legit critique of the first trailer. Calling anyone who's a critic of your product a misogynist didn't work in Gamergate, it didn't work here either.
Ghostbusters - It Has Women in It!
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That title also triggered me. When I see the word "ghost" and "busters" it triggers me. When I see a female lead, it triggers me. When I wake up and see pink, it triggers me. I breathe and it triggers me. You know, the world triggers me and my childhood has also been triggered.Hawki said:
(Joke, kids. That was a joke. Pink is life, pink is bae)
Congratulations! You just discovered that things can be catalogued in something more than just "good" or "bad". My recommendation to dissipate the confusion: ask those who you trust (instead of just Internet strangers).Bob_McMillan said:
...I'm still waiting for it to hit retail.
Am I the only person that actually liked that movie for what it was? It keeps popping up but I would actually say it's nothing alike in the long run other than taking an established franchise name and doing nothing with it but cash in, and even then I'd say the movie does something close to reimagining, just not properly which creates so many logical holes it ruins the experience.Karadalis said:
I started my timeline earlier than the trailer release. I was addressing all the people who were complaining that the movie would "ruin their childhood". Which is a silly hyperbole. Their point was to call out this movie for what it was going to be. Nostalgic cash grab with a pointless gimmick. Then the trailer came along. I agree with you. I wasn't thrilled with the trailer. I didn't think it was that bad. However, a lot of people had a stronger negative reaction to the trailer and voted it down. That still doesn't give the studio any justification to claim that people who are critical of the movie are misogynists.Kibeth41 said:
You may disagree that this movie deserved the angry mob treatment that it had received. I agree that angry mobs should be reserved for serious issues that demand such a reaction. Movies, regardless how bad they are, don't deserve the angry mob treatment. My point is that if so many people had a problem with different aspects of the movie. They should have listened and reacted diplomatically to their complaints. Instead of dismissing these people as being sexist.
This is what I expected. Paul Feig doesn't make great movies, he makes movies run the gamut from ok to pretty good, not great. I'll definitely check it out. Fun fact, when I was a wee lad, my best friend and I spent 5 consecutive Halloweens dressed as Ghostbusters. I think I will ultimately probably enjoy it based on reviews I have read. The worst part of this film looks to be that horrible theme song. I feel like these day, when you see a song by Fallout Boy and Missy Elliot, it's most likely just over produced trash, which is what it sounds like. Song by formula, not by inspiration.
Hey whoa! Next you'll be saying this isn't an 'All female cast' 'cause there are dudes in it!RedRockRun said:
Wait so am I interpreting things wrong, or was After Earth intended to be a movie to launch a multi-media IP reaching movies, gaming, novels, graphic novels, figures, toys, clothing and beyond?vallorn said:That's honestly the kind of thing that induces me to avoid most Sony Pictures products like the plague. Especially this one.
How. How? HOW! How
Whoa, whoa, whoa... You're telling me the new film has men in it?Silentpony said:
Bullshit. I don't buy it, dude. Why else would the movie be marketed as the 'all female Ghostbusters'?
Well, I'm glad if nothing else that Patty Jones' character isn't as one-note as she appears in the previews.
(I know that preview editors often have a rough job, working with limited and sometimes unfinished footage that they have to piece into an attractive pitch for their product- but boy, does it seem like we've seen some absolute horrorshow trailers in the past few years.)
(I know that preview editors often have a rough job, working with limited and sometimes unfinished footage that they have to piece into an attractive pitch for their product- but boy, does it seem like we've seen some absolute horrorshow trailers in the past few years.)
Look, if you strip back the frankly appalling behaviour of both the dark corners of the internet who took umbrage and the people at Sony who don't know what public relations are, the movie is largely a run of the mill comedy. Also, who did Andy Garcia owe money to that he had to accept a role in this lukewarm effort?
Some of it works, I liked McKinnon's character and Wiig has her moments and Chris Hemsworth, bless his soul, is game for playing the walking non-sequitur. That said, I have some thoughts on how they can improve the sequel if they're going forward with one:
1. Have the principal cast (McKinnon, Wiig, McCarthy, and Jenkins) hang out more as people: this will help build chemistry.
2. Give Hemsworth and Jenkins better roles. Movie scientists are notorious for being shitty at handling bureaucracy and money so there's no reason that Hemsworth couldn't be their guy who manages the cash and legalese. Also, I think Jenkins should be (either through retcon or new plot development) an actual city historian for New York. They don't need to be scientists to be valuable to the team.
3. Stop killing your tension and dial down on physical comedy: I suspect this is an issue of translation more than anything else since broad physical comedy is easier to translate than wordplay but yeah, cut that shit out.
Also, they missed a golden opportunity to have the soldiers and cops be directed to recreate parts of the Thriller music video.
Some of it works, I liked McKinnon's character and Wiig has her moments and Chris Hemsworth, bless his soul, is game for playing the walking non-sequitur. That said, I have some thoughts on how they can improve the sequel if they're going forward with one:
1. Have the principal cast (McKinnon, Wiig, McCarthy, and Jenkins) hang out more as people: this will help build chemistry.
2. Give Hemsworth and Jenkins better roles. Movie scientists are notorious for being shitty at handling bureaucracy and money so there's no reason that Hemsworth couldn't be their guy who manages the cash and legalese. Also, I think Jenkins should be (either through retcon or new plot development) an actual city historian for New York. They don't need to be scientists to be valuable to the team.
3. Stop killing your tension and dial down on physical comedy: I suspect this is an issue of translation more than anything else since broad physical comedy is easier to translate than wordplay but yeah, cut that shit out.
Also, they missed a golden opportunity to have the soldiers and cops be directed to recreate parts of the Thriller music video.
I could've done without Hemsworth dancing in the credits, but I heard there was an after-credit scene (yes it's exactly what you think it is). Other than that, it was an enjoyable popcorn flick, a solid C+. The various cameos were a little out there, but it was nice seeing the old crew. And btw, after seeing
in this movie and their age now, how's this gonna figure into
Sigourney Weaver
Blomkamp's Alien 5?
Bullshit. The Robocop reboot got slammed, the Turtles movies got eviscerated (a HELL of a lot more so than the GB remake), Transformers, GI-Joe, the new Superman films. All of them received easily as much if not more so negativity than the GB reboot and I could go on. But because the garbage that calls itself "journalists" couldn't make a "haters are sexist" story out of the negativity (because those films didn't base their ENTIRE marketing campaign as "if you don't praise this you're scum") the negativity never got the attention.Kibeth41 said:
The point comes next.Kibeth41 said:
You clearly don't know people. Ghostbusters fans in general are attacking the movie and a fan is not ipso facto a nerd, unless you're just calling everyone who is attacking it a nerd, in which case you're just namecalling which says all it needs to on its own. Or, you're calling anyone that cares about something a nerd, in which case please see the previous sentence again.
I can say now that this movie has given me a headache and I haven't even seen it yet.
recommends people go see ghostbusters movie,didn't like the wow movie. Is it just one person rating movies,or a team if not can we get multiple people.
Wow. I'm glad I read this even though it's full of spoilers, because breaking established logic is one of my biggest pet peeves in movies.Karadalis said:
I was worried about the CGI when I saw the first trailer. The ghost vomits (another problem) on Wiig and the vomit looks real and the ghost completely CGI. I hoped that this was just an early trailer problem, but seeing the release trailer made me sigh in disappointment as there was clearly no effort to make the ghosts look as real as they did in the originals - although clearly better than the release trailer. Why not invest in making CGI that actually mimics the ghosts from the first movie? Stupid cash grab
. Do the ghosts look as fake to everyone else as I think they do?
PS: I also hate the equipment redesign
PSS: I thought the Total Recall remake sucked, but the Robocop remake was decent - at least Robocop still looked cool and asked interesting questions (without the R-rating it could never surpass the original though), while Total Recall removed everything cool about the original - going to Mars, trading a colorful colony with just being on a grey Earth, etc.
So we went from the trailers making it look atrocious, to it merely being aggressively 'Eh'.
Well, I guess that's technically a step up.
Still don't think I'll see it though, that doesn't exactly sound like the best of sales pitches, and I'm disinclined to reward cynical cashgrabs.
Well, I guess that's technically a step up.
Still don't think I'll see it though, that doesn't exactly sound like the best of sales pitches, and I'm disinclined to reward cynical cashgrabs.