|
seaborgium posted:Annie Pott's says Egon is so brave for bringing him in, being so nice and humanitarian and Egon says "I don't think he's human." Just beautiful the way it's perfectly serious one-liners that are hilarious. "Print is dead." Harold Ramis is easily the funniest character in the movie for me. Icon-Cat posted:"Wanna see a movie? It's about a group of research scientists who invent ghost-fighting equipment, go into business as private paranormal investigators, and save the world from a Sumerian god and her eldritch abomination from an alternate dimension." And you'd think, well, that certainly sounds interesting. Exactly. My absolute favorite thing about Ghostbusters is that it's such dry parody of H.P. Lovecraft. Think about what's going on: there's an immortal elder god who seeks to destroy the world. The dead rise in anticipation of the end times. People are driven mad with hopelessness, bent to the will of pagan deities who wish to kill us all. All of our progress is slated to be wiped out in what is simply one of a long list of forgotten historical apocalypses... ...but, the characters are laughing about it. The film ends with a Great Old One descending on New York. However, it looks like a chubby marshmallow sailor. When Egon says, "Sorry, Venkman; I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought," it's every Lovecraft story ever. Except not. Because it is hilarious. I loving love Ghostbusters. This is a great thread.
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2009 10:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Sexual Lorax posted:Take Egon's "I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought." It's funny, but it's not funny because Egon's all wacky about it--"I'm TERRIFIED beyond the capacity for RATIONAL THOUGHT It's funny because Gozer is a Lovecraft-style elder god, and fear-induced insanity is what happens to humans who see it, but Egon was clearly rational enough to form that sentence. This was the joke. Die Laughing posted:A female Ghostbuster? Girls can bust ghosts as good as any guy. A crippled Ghostbuster? That'd be a huge inspiration for crippled kids. I'd just expect a bunch of fey, hair-gelled man-boys and jive-talking "tough chicks." All aesthetics. I feel like the relentless "minority representation" you describe is more of a 90's project. Though maybe children's TV isn't over that yet, so what do I know? I honestly don't give a poo poo who's in it, as long as their role is written in a way that fits. Though, to the poster who mentioned Enver Gjokaj...I hope NOT, because that guy doesn't need sci-fi/comedy. He needs to be in some serious, prestige acting pictures, playing method-as-gently caress early de Niro-style characters. He has the range to do it, and it'd be a shame to waste it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2009 21:35
|
|
boioioioioiiong 
" It's funny because the nerd is honestly scared.
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:As much as I like Rambo and Die Hard 4, the reboot process that led to Batman Begins and Star Trek was much more successful. But Ghostbusters is that kind of movie that doesn't need to be remade because they did it right the first time. Even the immediate sequel sucked, because it was really a lightning-in-a-bottle thing. I agree with both of these points. Ghostbusters was such a strange, inexplicable success that nobody had any idea how to proceed from there, and I think they still don't. All they can do is rehash elements from the first film, because they lack the insight to intelligently excise what works from what's mediocre or bad. I argue that the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels were a remarkably similar situation, of a franchise that got too big, too fast, and left producers totally flustered as to what they could do next. The Batman and Star Trek remakes were the exact opposite. They were projects with plenty of hindsight, born of extremely specific reactions to past problems with those franchises. They had very comprehensive notions of what they wanted to make, and reproduced nothing by rote because the entire agenda was turning the premise into something else. Ghostbusters 3 won't (and can't) do that, because the original was too successful, too idiosyncratic, and left very little new ground to explore with its premise. Incidentally, this makes me very intrigued by the forthcoming Aronofsky RoboCop. Not to disparage Verhoeven's film (or Burton's Batman for that matter), but the late 80's stylization and humor of those films left a lot of dense dramatic and thematic aspects untapped. The late 2000's pallor applied to action film could do amazing things for the anti-corporate and humanist messages of that story. A remake of RoboCop could actually do something other than stroke the penis of the original.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
Timby posted:Pretty sure that I just read that Aronofsky's RoboCop has been put on hold, because the very, very broke MGM wants him to make it in 3D (and probably PG-13, knowing studio morons), and he has no intention of doing so. This is balls. Though it's probably better to disappear than to turn out some weird groupthink 3D RoboCop project.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 22:10
|
|
|
Timby posted:I think it's more that Aykroyd hasn't had a single good idea since about 1990.  http://crystalheadvodka.com/SuperMechagodzilla posted:Remember that the ghosts in the first film are always characterized as female or effeminate. Slimer was unruly and hungry and left a trail of slime, like a woman. His eating hot dogs evokes the earlier scene where a ghost eats Ray's hot dog.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
Yeah, what's with that? Was it cheaper stock, or just some kind of weird, fast film stock that was in vogue?reality_groove posted:My reservation about a new Ghostbusters film isn't so much the cast but the setting. 2010 New York has nothing on 1980's New York. Unless you're over 50, I don't get this criticism. But even if you are and you experienced 1980's New York, it's not like gentrification wiped out everything gritty...the right stops on the JMZ, AC, or 4/5 in Brooklyn would accomplish whatever 1980's SoHo did in terms of mood. (And it'd even make narrative sense: as New York cleaned up and the Ghostbusters were forgotten, they had to move to the outer burroughs. It's better than having them do birthday parties.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 21:13
|
|
|
Die Laughing posted:As long as this turns on a new generation to the Ghostbusters, I'll be fine with that. My sad realization is that, most likely, people born after 1990 are more versed in "Ghost Hunters" than "Ghostbusters." Weird analog-looking instruments to measure ghostliness are no longer a joke, they're things people actually think have some sort of use in measuring the paranormal. I'd be thrilled if Ghostbusters III involved taking pot shots at those shows. Somehow, I could see Venkman being involved in that sort of thing, knowing full well it's snake oil, because he's an 80's playboy sociopath who doesn't give a poo poo, and money is greener than night vision cameras.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'm (rhetorically) asking why Lovecraftian themes are present in the film. I'm sure Aykroyd likes Lovecraft because of the scope of his apocryphal fantasy. But I think the movie's interest in Lovecraft is an absurdist reflection on the setting: it's about jaded New Yorkers who are so cynical about the trappings of their lifetyles that even something like Lovecraft - which is about despair, the failure of reason, and the nihilism of an amoral universe - just isn't a big enough deal to get riled up about. "I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought" is one of the funniest jokes in the film. Because in Lovecraft stories, that's what the elder gods do...but here, the Cult of Gozer is just another bureaucratic institution inconveniencing them. They take it about as seriously as the dean of the college or the EPA. I agree with your assessment that Ghostbusters is fundamentally about 1980's New York and class relations therein, but I don't think it needs to be about that to be good: the humor of the franchise is more flexible than that...it's about complementary personalities reacting to absurd circumstances in really flippant ways, and that can be tailored to any period or place. I'd contend that Men in Black was the Ghostbusters of the 90's. It was about different things thematically, but tonally was on-point. That's all I want in a movie like this...it doesn't even have to be Ghostbusters, but might as well be since they want to make it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Also I'm loving the suggestion of Christopher Nolan and Joss Whedon as possible directors for a ghostbusters sequel. INT. FIREHOUSE - DAY THE HERO holds a GHOSTBUSTERS NECKLACE. He STARES at it pitifully. HOT KUNG FU GIRL enters: GIRL: "Hey, cowboy. How you dealing with the dead wifage?" From behind a COMPUTER, a NERD ARCHETYPE YELLS: NERD: "No time for that! You two gotta get to that haunted pagoda and get your bust on, ASAP!" CUT TO: SEXY VILLAIN MONOLOGUE.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
YourEvilTw1n posted:What's up with this? Is it a marketing decision? Definitely. I think Star Wars is largely responsible: it was not aimed explicitly at children, but happened to appeal to them and was an absolute revolution in merchandising. People often blame Star Wars for "killing New Hollywood," which is hyperbolic, but it definitely created a large market for fantasy and especially children-focused fantasy in the 80's. And I think this had repercussions beyond the fantasy genre - the perception that any film had good marketing potential among children led to producers tailoring the franchise towards them. Ghostbusters II is certainly one example, Conan the Destroyer and the sequels to RoboCop are others. What's interesting to me is that now, we're seeing the opposite: franchises initially intended for children are being adapted for adult audiences. Kenneth Branagh, who's known for Shakespearean and literary adaptations, is making Thor. Aronofsky, whose bread and butter is art house drama, almost made his own RoboCop.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:It will suck badly. The hard part will always be keeping with the original while trying to do things in modern time. Quite frankly without the cast that the movie stumbled on, it wouldn't have been near as good as it was. That's going to be like aligning planets at a certain time to do it again That's more than half of it: cosmic luck to have assembled the team they did. The other aspect is that Ghostbusters was such a perfect product of its time, as a satire of the vaguely-libertarian zeitgeist of the Reagan era. I mean, it all still works and is entertaining today, but there was something very period-appropriate and politically incisive about what the movie does: cynically comments on social class and economic inequality in 80's New York, by placing it into this absurd horror genre setting. It's Secret of My Success, with ghosts. For contrast, look at something like Men in Black. It's an essentially similar narrative - an absurdist genre film that's a thinly-veiled social satire - but one reflecting resonant themes 13 years later, in the late 90's. So, it's less about class, but heavily about race. It's very much a product of the Clinton era, as an exploration of race and identity politics in a multicultural America. In that sense, making a new Ghostbusters is a difficult task because the entire humor of it is 35 years and 5 administrations ago. You'd have to make it about different things to stay resonant today, while somehow making it feel continuous with the original. A difficult task, and one that might not be worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:I would actually say it might not be as hard as it sounds modernizing the humor since the cultural consciousness seems to have looped back around to nutty libertarianism in the last few years. So, ghosts as bitcoin? There's something to this, I think. The way the first movie pokes fun at this 80's cowboy businessman style of bootstrapping, they could shift the idea to a parody of structureless tech startups. Ghostbusting as Snapchat, something like the way Arrested Development made fun of Facebook. But would it actually be satisfying? Honestly, I'd rather they kind of let Ghostbusters be. I really can't see a situation where a new sequel comes out decades later, and it's awesome and lives up to the mountain of expectation that's piled up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
Icon-Cat posted:It really is amazing. This is why I love watching older movies that shot in New York. It's like looking into another time. This is one reason why The Warriors is amazing. Apparently, some of New York's most notorious street gangs are based in the W 80's, and in Gramercy. They don't say if the gang leader has keys to the park...maybe their HQ is behind that artisan coffee shop at 18th & Irving.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:Wasn't that back when Times Square was known for it's peepshows and cases of crabs more than it's giant screens and getting blown up in movies all the time? The only time I've been there was in 2004 but my mom grew up there in the late 60s early 70s so she would tell me all kinds of fun/hosed stuff that happened there. Yeah, the cinematic reputation of Times Square is super fascinating. Because when your mother was there, it was Taxi Driver. Now, it's...some sort of Blade Runner nightmare of 100-foot video billboards. I literally can't fathom New York City prior to the 90's. In the years I lived there (2008-2011), I can't think of a single place I walked that struck me as particularly dangerous, including Harlem, Crown Heights, Bushwick, or Bed-Stuy...and that's become even more the case since. I assume that by 2035, it will be the crimeless future of Minority Report.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Gotta make ghosts in order'a bust 'em! The ghostprison-industrial complex. A TV show would almost be more appropriate than a movie at this point. There's already a procedural component to the premise, and now the effects possibilities for TV are so much improved, the need for a feature-level budget is less. The appeal has always been the characters and tone more than the plot specifics. And TV is frankly way better at this now, or has the potential to be. (Of course, I naively thought nobody could gently caress up a Zombieland TV series, too. Then that Amazon series happened and proved me dead wrong.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I mean it's basically early seasons of Supernatural but probably more urban areas and with a more technological bent. I was actually thinking more along the tone of Psych with horror elements mixed in, but yeah, that's kind of the same idea. MrJacobs posted:The characters would really be the primary appeal of a tv show since nobody gives a poo poo about a new team without a movie to introduce them. Hence why it should still probably be in NYC with the classic car to get people actually interested beyond a pilot where they don't see someone playing Venkman and change it. A movie introducing a new cast would have the same obstacle, though. No matter what groundwork they did to establish them, if they weren't compelling on their own, it wouldn't matter and the whole project would (rightly) fail anyway. The real question is why do we even want more Ghostbusters media? The original is such a product of the 80's; the entire humor of it makes more sense as a lampoon of Reagan-era economic thought. What would a new team of Ghostbusters be about? Are they like an SF tech startup?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
hhhat posted:I really don't understand the 'I don't want a sequel' crowd, the idea being it might suck. Who the gently caress cares? I totally get and respect this point; the relative shittiness of Ghostbusters 2 doesn't keep me from enjoying the original. My issue is more a frustration with franchise IP overrunning any other project. It's not that "my childhood would be ruined" by a crap sequel, I just don't see the point behind one, beyond momentum and familiarity. Don't get me wrong, if someone had a really interesting and relevant thing they wanted to say through a Ghostbusters sequel, I'd be completely into it. But right now, it seems like Aykroyd wants it and nobody else particularly does.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
hhhat posted:If it did come about it would be a colossal smashing success and many many people would hand over money to see it. Maybe Murray doesn't wanna and Reitmans all done but that doesn't mean nobody wants it. I meant "nobody else" of the creative team. Reitman and Murray don't seem interested, and since Harold Ramos died, I imagine they're even less inclined. There just doesn't seem to be a real creative push. I'm sure it would earn money, but so do the Transformer movies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Soulwrangler posted:I wonder what kind of research Sony is doing with the limited re-release of Ghostbusters this August. Whoa, yeah. That's interesting. I remember when Evolution was being sold as "the new Ghostbusters." It was so terrible. Also, as I've previously ranted, Men in Black was already the new Ghostbusters at that time and it was awesome (the first one, anyway.) It even had a catchy song tie-in. It had everything.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:please god not Melissa McCarthy Seriously. I despise Melissa McCarthy so much. I hate her for the same reason I hate Will Ferrell, for shouting his way through movies in the most broad and stupid way possible. The reality that Chris Farley, another loudmouth adult-child comedian I never liked, was unable to star in a Ghostbusters movie is a blessing. But bringing in female characters in general is definitely a good idea. Aubrey Plaza, Alison Brie, Nasim Pedrad...I could see any of them doing it, sure. Just goddamn please no Melissa McCarthy in a jumpsuit shouting taunts at ghosts for 2 hours. That sounds like a nightmare.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Do it from the perspective of the ghosts as they struggle to escape the jumpsuited libertarians trying to mine their souls for bitcoins. Would watch, 100%. Imagine the fear of being a ghost in Pac-Man. It's like that, in a luxury hotel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:And it wouldn't be a comedy either, but instead a dark cop drama with scenes of incest, rape and child murder. "Who ya gonna call?!" "Special Victims Unit!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
cams posted:I hope it has as little to do with the original as possible and its only connection is that there are ghosts who get busted. It becomes a stirring systemic critique of the ghost prison-industrial complex, as the Ghostbusters bust innocent ghosts who have been dimensionally-profiled. "Light's green, trap is clean," becomes an indictment of the callousness of a profit-driven ghost industry, as it fails to serve justice to the ghost community. MrJacobs posted:Venkman was a con-man who used his degrees as a front for his goals Pretty much. He isn't just an rear end in a top hat who trolls people, he's a satire of 80's business culture. I've gone into it before in this thread, but the best way I can think to translate the satirical aspect of Ghostbusters is to reference Bay-area tech startups. A Venkman-esque conman today would probably be some "tech entrepreneur" who's myopically obsessed with profit and doesn't give a poo poo about the real function of the service. It'd be like that Arrested Development plot from the Netflix season, where Maeby sells the poo poo out of George Michael's fake app concept and tons of people fall for it. Alia Shawkat's performance is even kind of like a young, female Bill Murray, thinking about it... "It's Ghostbusters but they're ladies," just sounds weaker the more I hear it, though. That's not a concept; it's set dressing. An all-female or mostly-female cast could be amazing, but what's the actual concept? Why make this movie vs. literally any other movie starring women?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Timby posted:If you're going to do a hard restart with four dudes, all it's going to get is harsh comparisons to the original -- "oh, so-and-so didn't come close to Ramis' brilliance," etc. If you take a step back, look at the thing holistically, and say, "Eh, what the hell, what about a cast of women," as it seems Feig and Dippold are doing, then I think there's at least a chance of them doing something pretty cool with the idea. Though, even if they cast women, if they attempt a 1:1 correspondence with the characters, it'll create comparisons. The only thing I think they need is a Venkman type to achieve a similar tone (of detachment and cynicism), but beyond that...yeah, just go off-book. Also, I don't know why people are concerned Feig will make them "sexy." That's not really his thing; he does broad comedies, but that's not where he goes with them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Also, Gillian Anderson should play the Egon role, if there is one. They really only need two "types" to make it work: an aloof cynic like Venkman and an earnest believer like Ray. Which is pretty loose criteria...an rear end in a top hat and a straight man for them to play off of. Egon and Winston aren't really necessary to make the humor work. (I mean, they're awesome, but directly correlating to them is a god awful idea.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
SunshineDanceParty posted:Lizzy Caplan and Emma Stone would be a great combo theoretically. One of Rebel Wilson and Melissa McCarthy is absolutely happening though. I don't think it's a bad thing, but other people are just going to have to accept that. Or not watch a new Ghostbusters movie if it upsets you that much. I have no particular aversion to Wilson, so I'd hope for that option if pressed. Why do people seem convinced Paul Feig's version will involve "sexy ghostbusters" in strippery outfits? What of his previous work makes it seem like he'd do that? He's not Michael Bay, and reducing his characters to sexualized mannequins doesn't seem like a studio imposition he'd tolerate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:I must be the only one on the planet who has never given a poo poo about Men in Black. I've heard the comparison to GB before (not as much as Evolution, but I haven't seen that) but to me, those films couldn't be further apart. They're not necessarily similar in plot or character, they're just self-aware and satirical send-ups of popular genres with similar tones. Ghostbusters borrows horror elements from the likes of Lovecraft, with the comedic bent that the characters are too cynical and pragmatic to be scared. Men in Black does something similar, but with science fiction and the X-Files conspiracy theory fascination of the 90's. So, where Venkman's too jaded to give a poo poo about this Cthuloid elder god, K is a member of the Illuminati shadow government but is totally blasé and dispassionate about the whole thing. They're just appealing to a similar sense of humor. Something like Shaun of the Dead is a more recent version of a thing that does that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea I definitely have confidence that Wiig can do deadpan, McCarthy not so much. This was also my concern, because I was only exposed to those sorts of roles for her. But my girlfriend's been rewatching Gilmore Girls, where she plays an excitable and naive dork who's actually not that dissimilar from Ray Stanz. Assuming they use her in that way, she might be great. There's literally no need for a Ghostbusters 3, so honestly the worst thing they could do is make the *same* movie in 2015. "Ghostbusters starring Seth Rogen and James Franco," is the alternative...is this people's wish? (I still wanted to see Aubrey Plaza or Nasim Pedrad in the mix. Or Alia Shawkat. Or Aisha Tyler.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The one thing that would maybe cause me to go all "NOT MY GHOSTBUSTERS" is if the occult stuff is toned down and simplified. I really enjoy hearing about Tobin's Spirit Guide and all of the different quasi-scientific terms Ray and Egon use for the ghosts. A lot of that stuff came from Aykroyd so I'm hopeful that element will still be there, he's going to be pretty heavily involved in this right? I sort of agree. I couldn't give a poo poo about how self-consistent or detailed the occult stuff is, it just made for the best jokes in the movie. All this horrifying Lovecraft poo poo is real, and almost nobody gives a gently caress. It's hilarious. "He was very big, and Sumerian," still kills me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Fine, "in Sumeria." It's still funny either way. There's this Elder God trying to gently caress poo poo up, but whatever. He was some Sumerian dude, or something. Pander posted:The joke is that Venkman has absolutely no idea who Gozer was. That doesn't change either way you hear it. He still flubs a bullshit answer. Exactly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Pander posted:This sounds like executives and marketing looking at Marvel's success without any loving clue as to why it works beyond "lots of movies!" Same thing happened with Universal, too. Dracula: Untold was supposed to kick off a Universal Monster Cinematic Universe, with new versions of The Mummy, Frankenstein, Wolfman, etc. Then it underperformed and they're reevaluating the whole thing. It's insane to me how desperate movie studios are to duplicate any and all models that have ever worked for anyone else. "These comic book movies mining over 80 years of characters and stories sure seem to be making a lot of money. Do we still have, like, Flash Gordon or something? Can we make 12 movies out of that?" I eagerly await the rebooted 90's Kevin Costner Cinematic Universe. So, they can do a Costnerverse All-Star Team-Up where Robin Hood, Wyatt Earp, the Postman, and the Waterworld Mariner team up to protect Whitney Houston from a time-traveling Eliot Ness. Come on, Warner Bros. If you, Universal, and Orion can cooperate, you'll be swimming in that sweet Costner money.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:OK, so real-talk... if they don't use the original theme song (or even a cover of it), who would you want to make a new theme song, assuming that they do it? And in what style? Will Smith. In a 90's clean rap that samples from "Another One Bites the Dust." (Another one busts a ghost)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
WAR FOOT posted:I didn't like Holtzmann much because I don't like the zany pixie dream girl archtype. The implication of a manic pixie dream girl type, though, is that the character exists to elicit something out of a (male) author surrogate; she's a non-character whose primary function is to be an accessory for the introspective, shoe-gazing protagonist. She's weird and eccentric, but not for any other specific character's benefit. And yeah, she is 100% super gay. Absolutely "U-Haul full of cats" lesbian. I saw it tonight and thought it was great. I get people's complaints about dropping important-seeming plot points or relying heavily on certain jokes, but I didn't care. The characters felt well-drawn to me, and were not the one-to-one translations of the original guys the trailers made me think they'd be. Also, I enjoy the fact that it is trolling its rear end in a top hat male critics. The new PKE meter is literally a pink vaginal shape. The trap Holtzman shows off at the end is basically a vagina dentata. The only central male character is hyperbolically stupid eye candy. And the film directly addresses angry, misogynist YouTube-comment rants within the text of the film. Not to mention the movie's obviously feminist themes. The primary villain is essentially Eliot Rodger, motivated by angry, male entitlement. The secondary villain (the mayor's office) focuses primarily on erasing the female scientists' accomplishments and discrediting them as non-authority amateurs (vs. the original, where the EPA's similar role is more a libertarian critique of obtuse bureaucracy ruining American ingenuity.) I am glad I saw this film and hope it is a success.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Aw, jeeze. You nerds tricked me into listening to someone named the angry video game nerd? Ugh. Me too. I knew it would piss me off, and it did. At one point, he blames the new movie for being released after the death of Harold Ramis. I used to think *I* was a nerd, but I have a strong urge to shove him in a locker and break his wireframe glasses. The more I hear douchebags complain about this movie, the happier I am that the MRA douchebag villain is finally defeated when they shoot him in the dick until he collapses and is sucked into a portal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:Went in to this movie not knowing much (other than the gender-fueled backlash which is retarded) and found it to be an above-average comedy with a good cast. For some reason I was expecting this Ghostbusters and the original to take place in the same timeline, with everyone who experienced the events in the original having ghost-induced amnesia, except for the original Ghostbusters of course, who join in and help. No idea where that idea came from Quantum multiple timelines. In PrimeUniverse, Gozer arrived in 1984. After they disintegrate her, she gets kicked back to the astral plane, and tries a bunch of other timelines. So, that's why she took until 2016 to start hammering on LadybusterUniverse. I guess one of the failed reboot attempts was the timeline where there was nobody to call. In some 2006 alterverse, Gozer killed everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Crash74 posted:So what happens when they have to reboot the series a third time like spiderman? 30-somethings, nostalgic for the 2016 film they grew up on, poo poo on the trailer extensively. Though, it is kind of liberal stunt-casting bullshit to replace the original cisgendered female cast with 4 transsexual cyborgs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:The Ghostbusters were wrecking poo poo all over the place in this film, not just the final scene. They also killed Bill Murray and no one gave a poo poo. #NotMyVenkMan Counterpoint: that has been Bill Murray's wish for a while. Didn't he stipulate that, were he to be in a Ghostbusters 3, he'd want Venkman to die in the first act? Or is this story apocryphal? In any case, I don't understand the complaint that this film "shits on" and disrespects the original, because it was already shat on by 20 years of stalled development due to the extreme reluctance by one of the principals to appear in it. Bringing back every living alumni from the originals they possibly could seems fairly reverent, even if they're not Ol' Man Stanz showing these youngins' the ropes. The theater I saw it in was absolutely packed with women, and they were extremely jazzed to be seeing it. I fail to see how a previously unengaged audience being suddenly super into the property is bad for "true fans." But then, douchebag entitlement and what-not. gently caress that little girl with a proton pack toy. That's not adorable and great; it's an affront to true fans who coincidentally are men. Xealot fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
shitpostmodern posted:I think you will find that adults who are, I don't know, parents of girls, maybe, probably do give a poo poo about their daughters having role models who aren't relegated to being gormless background arm candy like in every other goddamn movie that exists. Just a thought. I am not a parent. But I have a niece, and I have friends with daughters. I like that they might engage with Ghostbusters like my brother and I used to. Given that the alternative properties that are popular and aimed at young girls are Disney princesses a la Frozen, I like that dorky scientist characters who wear coveralls and build gadgets and fight ghosts are a thing little girls think are awesome and fun. I like that stories where girls have agency and make things and are valued beyond their appearance are stories being told. Sorry for being a weirdo who is invested in the idea of young girls growing up with popular media that is not Barbie or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
philosoraptor posted:Did you and your brother become scientists? Or did you just learn to "like science?" Because, I hate to say this, people become scientists because they are raised by good parents, not because their parents let them watch movies with good role models. My brother is a mechanical engineer who does product design. I work in media post-production in finishing and motion graphic capacities. Neither of us catch ghosts, but media we liked as children contributed to our professional ambitions in non-irrelevant ways; thanks for asking. My point generally was just that seeing roles for women where their value comes from actions and knowledge rather than appearance or relationships is unusual. A little girl who loves Rey isn't going to grow up to be a Jedi, but she might internalize the idea that she can make active choices and be the hero of her own story, or whatever cliche you choose. A girl who thinks Holtzman is cool for building stuff doesn't necessarily need to go into STEM for that to have some effect. Patty totally does have some cliched mannerisms, but that's kind of Leslie Jones' persona as a performer in general. It didn't strike me as all that unbelievable...that's probably kind of how she actually is. And to be honest, I think Patty's used in a more versatile way than Winston ever was. They're both blue collar counterweights to the insular nerdiness of the rest of the team, but the whole "Patty is a history buff" quirk is essentially borrowed from Ray. Clearly, the character spends her boring MTA shift reading, and interjects with excited facts the way Ray used to. I could see that character delving deep into the lore research aspect, since it'd fit the way she's already being used.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
philosoraptor posted:So I guess you learned that Ghostbusters isn't about the investigation of the natural world, it's about inventing and marketing new desires? Isn't it funny how the movie markets itself to us with the logo the characters invent to market their service: creating and disposing of fantasies? You're right, since Carl Sagan wasn't one of the original Ghostbusters, I wasn't inspired to devote my life to interrogating the natural world as the heroes fight a Sumerian god that looks like a marshmallow person. I'm at a loss as to your specific point. Are you upset that Ghostbusters is a commercial product? It is. People engage with media, and that media is often made by corporations. It can still have multiple meanings and can still resonate with the audience in a multitude of ways. Maybe some kid does resonate with the idea the characters study odd phenomena. Maybe others think the gadgets are cool and they'd like to build things, too. My praise for the movie is that one of its primary arcs is to overcome adversity in pursuit of your nerdy-rear end hobby interest, even if it sounds dumb or impractical to others. Maybe that doesn't involve curing Polio, but so it goes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2016 05:10
|
|