Dude, WUT!? The original Alien is phenomenal! I can only imagine the reason you didn't like it was that you were expecting it to be an action blockbuster like Aliens, when in actuality it's a horror/slasher (and not a god damn sci-fi like so many people miscategorise it as!). Imagine how shocking the chest-burster scene would be if you had no knowledge of it going in. It just comes out of nowhere!frizzlebyte said:
That theory about McCarthy assumes that the director allows her to act in a certain way. It's pretty typical for a director to say "I want you to tone it down for this scene" or "I want you to ham it up for this scene" etc etc. Regardless of what the actor thinks the scene should call for. Jeremy Irons and The Illustrious Nick Cage probably didn't have a director who told them how to do the role, beyond possibly broad strokes "You're a raging egomaniac with a god complex". And of course, there's always the fact that the actor has zero control over which take survives editing. Maybe she did 2 dozen takes of each of those scenes, and tried a vast range of emotional approaches, but the director decided to go with the take they preferred, not what the actor preferred.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
I'd like to give her that much credit but with the way Leslie Jones is defending her character, I'd say that the director is just a shit director all around. I mean granted we've only seen snippets so it could be better than it was presented...Happyninja42 said:
True, and while I'm nowhere near an expert on the subject, I have seen enough "behind the scenes" kind of interviews with the people who create entertainment, to understand that a lot of it is totally out of their hands. For a great example, look at the Dresden File tv show. Most fans of the books (and people in general), felt the show was terrible, or at the most, not very good. But I've seen enough Q&A's with Jim Butcher, and heard him discuss the production of that show, to know it was basically killed from the start by the producers. They hired a new person last minute to spearhead the project, he came in and said "Yeah, all this work you've been doing to make an overarcing plot? With detailed, intricate narratives, that interweave to tell a large story? Yeah we're not doing any of that. Break it all up, we're doing episodic, people don't want to see a continuous story." "...but, we start filming the first episode in 3 days, and we've put in hundreds of hours of work into this cohesive, well developed story that covers the first two books over the course of the season..." "yeah, don't care, cut it all up, just change the names of people and make them all individual stories. Oh, and I'm also going to send you last minute rewrites from LA last minute of my work day, even though you're in the eastern side of Canada filming, and thus won't get these notices until like 4am your time, and you start shooting in 2 hours. I don't care that this means that an actor who thought he'd get to go home for a few days and see his family has to turn back around, and do a full day of filming on little to no sleep, do it." It was a complete fiasco to hear him talk about it. And that's just 1 tv show, on the Sci Fi channel. So yeah, most movies, it's a miracle they even get completed, much less come out halfway decent. And 99% of that has nothing to do with the actor's input.Richard Gozin-Yu said:
We're just going to have to disagree on this point I think. I could point to similar typecasted actors, Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey, etc. And 99% of their work, I hate, but then they do something like Stranger Than Fiction, or The Truman Show, and we see they are capable of doing more, if they are given a script not specifically designed to put them in their typecast role I mean, if the only movies you get/are offered, are slapstick comedies, is it any surprise that all of your roles are the same? Hell 99% of the movies in any genre are the same movie, that's why we give them genre titles, as they package a lot of pre-knowledge about what to expect. Chick Flick - It's going to be a romantic comedy, the leading actress is probably going to be a hard working professional, who suddenly ends up with a guy that "just drives her up the wall!", but they end up falling in love. There will be some small, intimate thing she shares with him in an offhand way. He will do something fairly minor, but she will take it out of context, and break it off with him, and leave. And he will have to show up at the finale in a dramatic romantic display, incorporating that thing she mentioned to him offhand, showing he did really care, probably involving a ridiculous, over the top, stupid display. "Gasp! You heard me when I said I always found pink ponies with birthday hats on their heads, while a clown rides one singing Hey Jude was one of my dream moments! You DO CARE about me!!" then they kiss and everyone applauds around them, credits roll.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
I want the movie to be good too, I just don't think it will be, based solely on the trailer. I hope it's a case of "trailers lie", and the movie is much better, but we'll see. As to Kristen Wiig, again, I don't really know her work, so I can't comment on it, but like Leslie Jones, I've heard from people who apparently are familiar with her, and they say she's just doing her regular thing that she always does. So, again *shrugs*. Though I do agree that the blonde engineer is probably going to be the most enjoyable of the group, but since she seems to be the "Vinkman" of the group, she's probably got more leeway to be charming/goofy/smartassy/etc.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
I dunno, from most sources I've heard, the general opinion is that Hayden is in fact, not a very good actor. That he's just really bland and wooden. Again, haven't seen much of him other than Leapers, and he was....ok in that. The supporting actor, the Irish/Scottish Leaper was WAAAY more engaging in my opinion.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
It's more over the top and they even made the "token" black character a ridiculous stereotype. The original ghostbusters had wise cracking placed within the horror genre. This is just cartoonish silliness. The two are very different in tone.WinterWyvern said:
And why shouldn't there be outrage over a sexist decision to only hire people of a specific sex/race/whatever for the purpose of intentional discrimination? The movie should have been made more diverse with male and female characters, not just gender flipping for novelty sake with a blatant disregard for the fact that they are engaging in overt sexual discrimination.
That's because it was the 90's. People do complain about that trend now. Sensibilities change. Back in the 90's females were not really seen as firemen in the public consciousness (even though women have been firefighters for centuries) and as such Ghostbusters made sense to be all male given its context in time. A non-trivial number of 90s comedies seem to take place in traditionally male environments too. Golf course, corporations, war, etc.
We don't think that female actresses have to play the same roles. They do perform in comedies and action flicks and everything else nowadays. There is nothing that needs to "prove" that.
In my opinion, that's a lazy explanation. These are businesses, and they're doing something that they think will make them the best possible return on their investment. You need to separate that from the fact that you're not the target audience. Naturally, you and people like you are not a necessary element of mass appeal, since you're a niche.crimson5pheonix said:Yes, the reason is that they have no creativity, so they're taking a fun movie and rebooting it into boring with a conceit that guarantees press instead of actually making a good movie.Kanedias said:I think that you're confusing intelligent commentary, or subtext, and intelligence. Ghostbusters was a fun, 80's comedy. Most of what it was, was fun, plus those proton packs were the most amazing thing a young kid could imagine at the time. Frankly, that time has passed, and the time of screwball antics and 80's high concept comedies has largely passed. There's a reason that they're doing a reboot, instead of trying to tell a new story after all.crimson5pheonix said:
The first movie was actually very intelligent in that on top of being funny in an actually funny way.
We'll see if it has mass appeal, the trailer still has worse than a 1 to 3 like/dislike ratio. And you can't argue that there hasn't been plenty of press for the trailer talking up it's all female main cast as well as defending the trailer on the same ground. Fans of the original movie (and there are plenty of them) can see it for what it is, an attempt at a lazy cash grab with a gimmick that guarantees press, and a lot of good press too, no matter how poor the actual movie is. It might make a bunch of money, but it will almost certainly go down as a disposable film and the original will be more popular in syndication.Kanedias said:In my opinion, that's a lazy explanation. These are businesses, and they're doing something that they think will make them the best possible return on their investment. You need to separate that from the fact that you're not the target audience. Naturally, you and people like you are not a necessary element of mass appeal, since you're a niche.crimson5pheonix said:Yes, the reason is that they have no creativity, so they're taking a fun movie and rebooting it into boring with a conceit that guarantees press instead of actually making a good movie.Kanedias said:I think that you're confusing intelligent commentary, or subtext, and intelligence. Ghostbusters was a fun, 80's comedy. Most of what it was, was fun, plus those proton packs were the most amazing thing a young kid could imagine at the time. Frankly, that time has passed, and the time of screwball antics and 80's high concept comedies has largely passed. There's a reason that they're doing a reboot, instead of trying to tell a new story after all.crimson5pheonix said:
The first movie was actually very intelligent in that on top of being funny in an actually funny way.
If it makes a bunch of money, then its disposability is really not an issue. Investors don't aim for an instant classic, they aim for a good return. If it's a "bunch of money" then they'll be thrilled, and you'll see a Ghostbusters 2. That's how the business actually works.crimson5pheonix said:We'll see if it has mass appeal, the trailer still has worse than a 1 to 3 like/dislike ratio. And you can't argue that there hasn't been plenty of press for the trailer talking up it's all female main cast as well as defending the trailer on the same ground. Fans of the original movie (and there are plenty of them) can see it for what it is, an attempt at a lazy cash grab with a gimmick that guarantees press, and a lot of good press too, no matter how poor the actual movie is. It might make a bunch of money, but it will almost certainly go down as a disposable film and the original will be more popular in syndication.Kanedias said:In my opinion, that's a lazy explanation. These are businesses, and they're doing something that they think will make them the best possible return on their investment. You need to separate that from the fact that you're not the target audience. Naturally, you and people like you are not a necessary element of mass appeal, since you're a niche.crimson5pheonix said:Yes, the reason is that they have no creativity, so they're taking a fun movie and rebooting it into boring with a conceit that guarantees press instead of actually making a good movie.Kanedias said:I think that you're confusing intelligent commentary, or subtext, and intelligence. Ghostbusters was a fun, 80's comedy. Most of what it was, was fun, plus those proton packs were the most amazing thing a young kid could imagine at the time. Frankly, that time has passed, and the time of screwball antics and 80's high concept comedies has largely passed. There's a reason that they're doing a reboot, instead of trying to tell a new story after all.crimson5pheonix said:
The first movie was actually very intelligent in that on top of being funny in an actually funny way.
Here's the problem, this thought hinges on the fact that you can piss off the fans if there is large enough appeal. Ghostbusters was a very popular film, meaning it has a very large fanbase. In fact, currently, the trailer has been viewed a bit more than 23 million times and currently ~69% of people dislike it. If 69% of people don't buy a $12 ticket (which I think is the average ticket price in America, could be wrong about that though), they'd be out ~$200,000,000 on just the movie going audience that has seen the trailer. I should mention the movie has a $154 million budget [http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Female-Ghostbusters-Movie-Has-Giant-Budget-71005.html], so they can't afford to lose that much money.Kanedias said:If it makes a bunch of money, then its disposability is really not an issue. Investors don't aim for an instant classic, they aim for a good return. If it's a "bunch of money" then they'll be thrilled, and you'll see a Ghostbusters 2. That's how the business actually works.crimson5pheonix said:We'll see if it has mass appeal, the trailer still has worse than a 1 to 3 like/dislike ratio. And you can't argue that there hasn't been plenty of press for the trailer talking up it's all female main cast as well as defending the trailer on the same ground. Fans of the original movie (and there are plenty of them) can see it for what it is, an attempt at a lazy cash grab with a gimmick that guarantees press, and a lot of good press too, no matter how poor the actual movie is. It might make a bunch of money, but it will almost certainly go down as a disposable film and the original will be more popular in syndication.Kanedias said:In my opinion, that's a lazy explanation. These are businesses, and they're doing something that they think will make them the best possible return on their investment. You need to separate that from the fact that you're not the target audience. Naturally, you and people like you are not a necessary element of mass appeal, since you're a niche.crimson5pheonix said:Yes, the reason is that they have no creativity, so they're taking a fun movie and rebooting it into boring with a conceit that guarantees press instead of actually making a good movie.Kanedias said:I think that you're confusing intelligent commentary, or subtext, and intelligence. Ghostbusters was a fun, 80's comedy. Most of what it was, was fun, plus those proton packs were the most amazing thing a young kid could imagine at the time. Frankly, that time has passed, and the time of screwball antics and 80's high concept comedies has largely passed. There's a reason that they're doing a reboot, instead of trying to tell a new story after all.crimson5pheonix said:
The first movie was actually very intelligent in that on top of being funny in an actually funny way.
If a billion people scream and hate a movie that makes a few hundred million, that movie is a huge success. Especially for a big studio effort that isn't exactly looking to fun small shakycam indie projects with a hope of a giant return, or spending 10 years trying to polish a single masterpiece in hopes that it wills till be relevant when released.
The first thing you do in the thread is to throw a petty insult at everyone in it. And if they really were behaving like children, one rather questions why you'd choose to share their company in the thread.Im Lang said:
And then you double down on the personal comments in an extremely unproductive manner.Im Lang said:
The bolded part is tantamount to calling someone a troll. It's fine to note that you don't see the same thing that someone else does, but calling them out like that isn't going to be very helpful.Fox12 said:
