|
I think the film looks fantastic. Better than the original even. And if you don't think so, you're probably some fat ugly loser MRA who bodyshames women.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Retarded_Clown_ posted:I think the film looks fantastic. Better than the original even. And if you don't think so, you're probably some fat ugly loser MRA who bodyshames women. Well, you got the "fat ugly loser" part right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:She was also good in the seven or whatever seasons of Gilmore Girls she was in. She's done a ton of stuff outside the "walking fat joke" genre, it really sucks that that's what she's known for. I know she does good stuff! I'm not a huge fan or anything, but I think my perception was colored too much by roles like what she played in The Heat and Tammy - and she was the screenwriter for Tammy. Come on McCarthy, you can do better comedy than that  She was pretty good in Spies, I guess, but the most memorable part of the movie is Jason Statham showing up and telling stories of other Jason Statham action movies to explain how much better suited he is to being a secret agent, which was just weird. I've literally never experienced any work by Kate McKinnon, and from the trailers it seems like she's the quirky weird one, maybe? That could turn out pretty good. Optimism is too strong a word but I'm definitely ready to give the movie a chance to win me over. I wanna see another trailer. Show me some more of KcKinnon and Wiig's characters, maybe. I'm ready to become more interested in this! Psykmoe fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Psykmoe posted:I know she does good stuff! Oh yeah, I wasn't directing that toward you or anything. And there was definitely a period right after she actually got big with Bridesmaids where those were the stereotypical roles she was cast as. I def have seen/know people who think that's her one note.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
I guess when it comes to acting No job is too big, and no fee is too big for Melissa McCarthy
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Timby posted:The only bit that rubbed me the wrong way was going so far as to having a ghost in a library in what looks like a first encounter. Feig and Dippold are legit comedy writers and the cast is great. I really don't think that the movie is going to go the same route. Yeah, this. I have a lot of faith in this movie, given the talent level of director, writers and cast involved. The trailer didn't blow me away, but it also did not make me jump off a roof, screaming "Sacrilege!". It's OK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
That bit in the trailer when they say that "someone has built a device to amplify paranormal activity", wasn't that basically the plot of the Ghostbusters video game from 2009?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:That bit in the trailer when they say that "someone has built a device to amplify paranormal activity", wasn't that basically the plot of the Ghostbusters video game from 2009? Sort of, except it's the architect of the building from the first movie and he came back in order to become a God like Gozer. He does possess someone though so it's similar in some ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Sort of, except it's the architect of the building from the first movie and he came back in order to become a God like Gozer. Okay, yeah, I remember now. It was that guy who used Danas building, along with several others in NY, interconnected with the slime tunnels from 2, to amplify paranormal power and open a rift to the spirit world. I wonder if the new movie will touch on any of that, or it's a completely new baddie trying something similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
So I was watching the original Ghostbusters tonight and noticed a familiar red divider..  Apparently Ray had been saving up for a while. "It got everywhere. In all the cracks."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Ah yes the fabled haunted stanchion of Harry Houdini.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:So I was watching the original Ghostbusters tonight and noticed a familiar red divider.. I find the workings of your brain fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
You're right. No human being would place velvet ropes like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
We'd like to get a sample of Infinitum's brain tissue
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Guy who apparently works on the production staff posted the plot summary over on Reddit and said it's bad and not very funny, so don't keep your hopes up about the trailer not being an indicator of the quality of the final product.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
I'm not taking anything posted on Reddit seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Whodat Smith-Jones posted:Guy who apparently works on the production staff posted the plot summary over on Reddit and said it's bad and not very funny, so don't keep your hopes up about the trailer not being an indicator of the quality of the final product. the guy also said reddit is in the movie also even if it was true the guy posts on reddit
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I'm not taking anything posted on Reddit seriously. I like this plan; I'm excited to be a part of it. Let's do it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:I like this plan; I'm excited to be a part of it. Let's do it! We have the tools! We have the talent!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Another one I noticed: their new equipment lab is based on the old firehouse interior I may regret posting this, but some reddit nerd claims to have seen a rough cut of the film as part of his work and says that almost all of these shots are at the end of the film, when the ghostbusters have 'made it' and can now afford the previously unaffordable firehouse ***WARNING, HERE BE SPOILERS, MAYBE?*** Speaking of, full nerd diatribe: https://np.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/493zai/ive_seen_an_early_version_of_the_new_ghostbusters/ Edit: I know, I know - 'REDDIT' and all. a cock shaped fruit fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Can I post what I think is going to happen on reddit and claim that I saw an advanced copy of the movie because my uncle is best friends with Paul Feig? ... Also, what is it with people who don't like movies that include things like the internet, cell phones, etc. "Oh it's so dumb because it dates the movie! They try so hard to make it current. Ugh!!" So when I go back and watch the original Ghostbusters and see something like this:  Does that not date the film? Did people back in the 80's see that computer there and exclaim "OMG they're trying too hard to put current technology in this move UGH just goes to show how much it sucks"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
xezton posted:
A lot of people straight up don't get that those are references. Like all the Bugs Bunny stuff is references to other performers, or this joke:  Back then, almost no one had a website so this is saying "look how fancy we are!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
The guy also calls them GGB's. Girl Ghostbusters. They can't just be Ghostbusters. The guy is a liar and a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
xezton posted:Also, what is it with people who don't like movies that include things like the internet, cell phones, etc. "Oh it's so dumb because it dates the movie! They try so hard to make it current. Ugh!!" Like that movie Chef, which looks like it was bankrolled by Twitter?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Like that movie Chef, which looks like it was bankrolled by Twitter? Well I haven't seen Chef so I don't know, but there's a difference between including current technology in a film (phones, tablets, popular social media), and shoving a brand in your face non-stop as I'm assuming Chef must have done to garner your description of it. I just don't get this reddit guy's double-standard. The old movie had *tons* of references and dated technology. In a movie that takes place in present day, including present day technology and trends is not really a choice. So, unless they're shoving the Youtube brand down my throat, who cares if people in 2016 use cell phones and the internet to get news about stuff? The old movie is certainly by no means immune to being heavily heavily dated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs&t=48s
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
xezton posted:So when I go back and watch the original Ghostbusters and see something like this: GB2 had perhaps a better example when Egon researched Vigo the Carpathian via the "Occult reference net". That was pretty advanced for 1989 although it looks hilariously dated these days.  Edit: Janine's computer in the first GB is a DEC Rainbow 100, first released in 1982. They also appeared in Beverly Hills Cop, The Philadelphia Experiment, Buckaroo Banzai and Tales from the Darkside - Season 1, Episode 5, "Mookie and Pookie", all from 1984. Also Egon wired it up wrong! http://starringthecomputer.com/computer.php?c=28 There were ad campaigns for the Rainbow 100 on TV so it wasn't incredibly widespread but it would have been fairly well known for a few years before Ghostbusters came out. Edit 2: drat, this starringthecomputer.com site is actually pretty interesting, they have listings of actual computers appearing in movies and TVs all the way back to the late 50s. Even Santa CLaus Conquers The Martians featured a IBM AN/FSQ-7. A desktop computer in a 1984 movie wouldn't have been out of the ordinary at all. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
Again, I am pretty sure that spoiler thing is bullshit. Like reddit being in the movie is something that is now possible in movies, but the way the guy brings it up it just sounds like he is "appealing to his base" "And get this... Reddit is totally in the movie... Sorry guys"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
PBS Newshour posted:Again, I am pretty sure that spoiler thing is bullshit. Like reddit being in the movie is something that is now possible in movies, but the way the guy brings it up it just sounds like he is "appealing to his base" A bunch of the stuff lines up with what AlexF says he saw in Germany but then again they might have used his post as a source and made up the rest. I guess AlexF could tell us whether he thinks this looked like the kind of movie that would namedrop Reddit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Two things I noticed from the first film: 1) I know that the board of directors terminating the guys' grants was probably a long time coming, but do you think that dude who got shocked at the beginning went and complained, thus perhaps speeding up the process? 2) Venkman's 'patent clerk' line outside of the university is definitely not recorded live, probably due to wind or background noise. If you listen closely, you can hear the echo (or lack thereof) of it being recorded in a sound booth, in post-production. This technique, for anyone who doesn't know, is called 'ADR', which stands for 'automated dialogue replacement'. It's a fairly common process, and sometimes it's easier to notice than other times. Never picked up on this line before, but it's most definitely ADR.  EDIT: Also...  FINAL EDIT (maybe): You know how when you've seen a comedy so many times, while it's appreciated, you just don't laugh at it anymore? I will never not laugh at Bill Murray's reaction to the Sedgewick Hotel guy sneaking up behind him. That "JEEZ!" gets me every time. 
Rupert Buttermilk fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
a cock shaped fruit posted:I may regret posting this, but some reddit nerd claims to have seen a rough cut of the film as part of his work and says that almost all of these shots are at the end of the film, when the ghostbusters have 'made it' and can now afford the previously unaffordable firehouse lmao if true, this looks so loving bad and incoherant
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip9tIwYd-8M I don't know why poo poo on all of reddit because of a few horrible subreddits. It's like hating SA because of the small group of pedos that hung out in ADTRW. That synopsis sounds like dreck though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:That synopsis sounds like dreck though. Yeah that's what convinced me it was genuine. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:A bunch of the stuff lines up with what AlexF says he saw in Germany but then again they might have used his post as a source and made up the rest. I guess AlexF could tell us whether he thinks this looked like the kind of movie that would namedrop Reddit. Welp, you made me read the whole thing. A Reddit post! Hope you're happy! As far as I can tell, he's right about everything up until the "WHAT FORM DO YOU CHOOSE?" - part because it goes beyond what was shown in January. There's even details in there I didn't mention that are correct. Everything about the concert happens exactly like that (although there was no Usher line in our material as far as I remember) and yes, McCarthy uploads the video, but I don't know the details because Paul Feig mentioned it between two scenes. He just glossed over it along the lines of "so they go to the hotel, film the apparition, the video gets uploaded to the internet, Wiig gets fired, etc etc etc" and then moved onto the next scene (the one with Hemsworth being an idiot). He's also spot on about the Dan Aykroyd cameo. I left out the --------"I ain't afraid of no ghosts"------ line but it's in there. So there's a chance they might mention Reddit, but would that really be so bad? It's one of the biggest websites out there so a namedrop doesn't seem out of place. Just a studio writer thinking "what kinda websites are kids using these days?" and coming up with Reddit sounds like pretty normal thing to me. Also, he makes it sound not-fun when it definitely is fun (me repeating this over and over will be my "Pixels" back from when kiimo tried to defend it - please don't pixel me, SA!).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with name dropping reddit its just the way the guy brought it up seem like he was so appealing to his base to his base there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
That reddit post is worth reading for the runner of that dude being totally unable to figure out what a reboot is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Based on those comments there appears to be an in-built bias against touching the Ghostbusters property. In other words, just it being a movie not released in the 80s named "Ghostbusters" makes it inherently worse in those people's eyes. That kind of bias is common across the internet. Even here in CD we had a guy who said Rango was so bad that he hoped movies like it were never made again (also a pre-screening).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
You could summarize the original movie at the same level and it would sound just as bad, if not worse. "I've seen poo poo that will turn you WHITE" lol how awful is this movie amirite guys. Product placement for Twinkies and at the end they get attacked by a giant marshmallow man or w/e. The jokes are very lame and this movie is a complete joke. There's really nothing serious happening and nothing is scary. The dialogue is horrible, cheesy, and loaded with slapstick and side comments that ruin any tension in the film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Winston doesn't say 'eleven-five a year', but 'another five a year'. At least according to Netflix. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Looke posted:lmao if true, this looks so loving bad and incoherant Lmao you're dumb enough to believe anything you read on a reddit
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
This is my favorite line from that reddit post: "Slimer and a female slimer with brown hair steal the GGB's car and drive around."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:22
|
|