[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
film/video

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 20925)
Message
File  []
close
image.jpg
209252092520925
>> No. 20925 Anonymous
12th July 2016
Tuesday 8:39 am
20925 Ghostbusters
I'm really looking forward to it, despite a couple of autistic bloggers crying about it. Not sure why such an over emotional reaction to a film is happening.

Really impressed with the way it's being marketed as well.
Expand all images.
>> No. 20926 Anonymous
12th July 2016
Tuesday 9:24 am
20926 spacer
>Really impressed with the way it's being marketed as well.

You're impressed by marketing?
>> No. 20927 Anonymous
12th July 2016
Tuesday 10:02 am
20927 spacer
>>20925
If it wasn't such a small site, I might wonder if this was marketing.
>> No. 20928 Anonymous
12th July 2016
Tuesday 10:09 am
20928 spacer
>>20927

I think it's just someone picking on a "big" news story in the hopes they'll start a cunt off.

I'll bet that £20 I won yesterday that the OP actually hates the Ghostbusters film and has half a dozen sock accounts on social media just for moaning about it.
>> No. 20929 Anonymous
12th July 2016
Tuesday 10:51 am
20929 spacer
Looking pretty good from the reviews on rotten tomatoes, as well

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/
>> No. 20930 Anonymous
12th July 2016
Tuesday 10:57 am
20930 spacer
I'm sure it's actually quite a fun blockbuster, but the clips on the adverts of the handsome but stupid Secretary bloke just make me imagine what would have happened if it was male ghostbusters with a ditzy blonde. Maybe that's the point, or I'm a disgusting offensive man apologist, I don't know.
>> No. 20931 Anonymous
12th July 2016
Tuesday 1:30 pm
20931 spacer
>>20930

probably both m8
>> No. 20932 Anonymous
13th July 2016
Wednesday 11:14 pm
20932 spacer
>>20927
HOW DARE YOU
>> No. 20933 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 12:10 am
20933 spacer
>>20930
This film pisses off the type of person who shouts about "MEN ALSO GET RAPED" whenever rape is spoken about. I'm sure those kinds of men, and you too, would not mind a film with a ditzy blonde woman in it. In fact, you wouldn't even notice it.
>> No. 20934 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 6:25 am
20934 spacer
>>20933

TRIGGERED!
>> No. 20935 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 7:24 am
20935 spacer
>>20933
I feel like I should disagree with this but I just can't somehow.
>> No. 20936 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 8:57 am
20936 spacer
Its fun/scary not giving a fuck about ghostbusters so I can watch this unfold from the sidelines. >>20929 gives a good link to see what is going on when you compare some of the 'top critics' and how reviews seem to be decided by who they are writing for.

The consensus among well regarded critics however is absolutely savage:
http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/

>>20930
>>20933
Ditzy blondes of either sex can be done right. The TV show Ideal is a good example of this with Jenny where initially she is a shit side character but then comes the point where she brings tears to your eyes.

Not taking a side either way just pointing out that with good writing it can be an effective character that we can all relate to at points.
>> No. 20937 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 9:27 am
20937 spacer
>>20936
I've been rewatching Ideal and I'd just like to register my love for Jenny's character, even from the first series. I think her lines most often have me howling in laughter. I'm interested as to why you think she starts out as a "shit side character".
>> No. 20938 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 11:17 am
20938 spacer
I'm of the firm belief any misogynistic campaigning against this film/controversy is purely the creation of the films PR team.

This film was never going to live up when directly compared to the original, but if you turn seeing it into a crusade for feminism, suddenly all objective assessment goes out the window, and you have the critic for time magazine telling people it is their moral duty to see it. https://archive.is/VtCm2
>> No. 20939 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 1:32 pm
20939 spacer
>>20933

No, I'd definitely notice a ditzy blonde in this day and age, and summarily roll my eyes at it. No real difference in reaction, except knowing people will defend the male version because triggers.
>> No. 20940 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 6:34 pm
20940 spacer
>>20936

When you have Ghostbusters fans of 20+ years saying "I want nothing to do with this mess", you know something is very wrong. It can't all be misogyny; Ghistbusters is one of those BIG pop culture legends - it's far more likely that people just didn't want to see it rebooted at all. Can you imagine the uproar if they remade Back to the Future?

I see China's bizarre movie censorship rules have prevented it being released in China...that's going to hurt their Box Office numbers. Isn't China like the second biggest market for cinema releases?
>> No. 20941 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 7:00 pm
20941 spacer
>>20939

>except knowing people will defend the male version because triggers

Isn't it more likely that the people will defend the original on the basis that it was a clever, funny movie starring three of the biggest names in American comedy at that time and that it was an unexpected smash hit phenomenon which went in to spawn a franchise and become an 80s pop culture icon? Nahhh, surely it can't be any of that.

Seriously....the fact that they were four guys was just incidental. It wasn't deliberate, it wasn't making an issue. It's only since they made the reboot and made a big deal of the all-female team that gender has actually become an issue in a franchise where it wasn't previously an issue. I mean yeah okay Paul Feig is trying to even things out for women in Hollywood and I think that's great, but making a fuss over something no-one ever made a fuss over is only going to hurt the cause, not help it. Ghostbusters was never referred to as 'the all male Ghostbusters' until Feig made this reboot. Why couldn't it be a mixed team? The fact is that he's made the team all-female to make some sort of statement. Trouble is he has three white girl scientists and a shouty sassy black girl who is 'street smarts'not a scientist - that's racist stereotyping. Plus every man in the film is portrayed as either a total idiot or a complete asshole. Hemsworth is total moron whom the team hire as a secretary based solely on his looks, the second he turns up for the interview. They defeat the final boss by shooting him in the dick. It's all very well accusing fans of sexism and misogyny but the fact is this film largely comes off as big FUCK YOU MEN - it is guilty of sexism and misandry, as well as racism, but this is somehow okay 'because feminism'? smh
>> No. 20942 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 8:32 pm
20942 spacer
>>20941
I wonder how often you make noise about how women are portrayed in film.
>> No. 20943 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 8:51 pm
20943 spacer
>>20942
Not him, but I make noise for how both are portrayed when it's obviously fucking stupid. Believe it or not, a lot of people aren't one or the other on this issue.
>> No. 20944 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 9:32 pm
20944 spacer
>>20943 This. Portraying women positively is brilliant. If you're portraying women positively whilst deliberately portraying men in a shitty manner, then you're not solving anything - you are part of the problem, you are perpetuating the very issues you claim to be trying to eliminate.
>> No. 20945 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 9:46 pm
20945 spacer
>>20944
You forgot to include #WhiteLivesMatterTooYouKnow at the end there.
>> No. 20946 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 9:53 pm
20946 spacer
>>20945
Wot m8?
>> No. 20947 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 10:03 pm
20947 spacer
>>20946
u erd m8
>> No. 20948 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 10:14 pm
20948 spacer
>>20941

When I said "defend the male version" I meant "defend the male version of the ditzy blonde" which is directly and singularly what I was talking about. Well done for fully ignoring that to launch your own speech, though.
>> No. 20949 Anonymous
14th July 2016
Thursday 10:44 pm
20949 spacer
>>20948

Not him, but TBF you could have made that a bit clearer
>> No. 20950 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 6:17 am
20950 spacer
>>20937
Allot of her lines were just tedious. Like the one where Moz tells her he only sells weed and hash so she goes and starts asking him if he has various letters he can sell her.

Yes that is the joke but it felt like they were just extending the running time.

>>20944
>Portraying women positively is brilliant.

Not too brilliantly of course. Female characters should have flaws and I think there has been some laziness in writing where women are just portrayed as either too-highly strung or having martyr complexes as their only issues.

In reality its really jarring when tv shows have great characters playing against 2d characters of either sex who never come across as human beings.
>> No. 20951 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 7:51 am
20951 spacer
I saw it last night. It's not good. The vast majority of comedies aren't so that's no real shocker. But it certainly is nowhere near as good as the original (which I wasn't even that fond of) and none of the performances held a candle to the original cast.

The whole "people hate it because women" thing probably has some merit, but 1) people would have hated ANY Ghostbusters remake because remakes are almost always shit and 2) plenty of female lead comedies come out without getting any kind of negative attention so it's not just "they're women" but "they're arbitrarily changing the old male characters in to females" which is nothing but true.
>> No. 20952 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 1:03 pm
20952 spacer
>>20934

Ohai Rob, how's your paedo friend doing?
>> No. 20953 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 6:05 pm
20953 spacer
>>20940

It's not their censorship rules that have forestalled its release, though. It's the fact that neither of the previous two Ghostbusters films were released in China either, so the franchise essentially means nothing to the Chinese - most of them haven't even heard of it. It's pretty certain that Sony pictures will have accounted for it not being released theatrically in China already. As it stands, all indicators are that it'll easily break the $50 million opening weekend BO target.
>> No. 20954 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 6:34 pm
20954 spacer
I'm really impressed with the marketing to, such an unexpected saturation, train stations, publicly funded news providers, obscure image boards.
>> No. 20955 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 6:45 pm
20955 spacer
>>20953

Do your research. The reason why this one isn't being released (as indeed the original two weren't) is because China does not allow movies involving ghosts, spirits etc.
>> No. 20956 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 6:52 pm
20956 spacer
>>20955

It sounds wonderful. I'm packing up and heading to this atheist utopia on the other side of the Himalayas right away.
>> No. 20957 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 7:02 pm
20957 spacer
>>20956

Oasis and Lady Gaga are banned too. Truly, it is a paradise.
>> No. 20958 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 7:07 pm
20958 spacer
>>20955

No, *you* do your research, pal.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-denied-release-china-910563
>> No. 20959 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 7:12 pm
20959 spacer
>>20958

Why do you imagine that the previous Ghostbusters movies weren't released in China? You're both right.
>> No. 20960 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 7:43 pm
20960 spacer
It is pretty fucking bad, but not in a laughable way. It's just very shit. It's one of those films where you keep glancing at your watch a lot, it feels very, very long.
>> No. 20961 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 8:32 pm
20961 spacer
>>20955

The whole Chinese cultural thing with ghosts and spirits is fascinating, even secular types are into it. My best paid exorcisms have been with Chinese people.
>> No. 20962 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 10:03 pm
20962 spacer
>>20961
>My best paid exorcisms have been with Chinese people.

What?
>> No. 20963 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 10:10 pm
20963 spacer
>>20962

You can't beat a good exorcism, lad.
>> No. 20964 Anonymous
15th July 2016
Friday 10:14 pm
20964 spacer
>>20961
You can't leave us hanging there, lad.
>> No. 20965 Anonymous
16th July 2016
Saturday 5:33 pm
20965 spacer
>>20962

When I do exorcisms, Chinese people tend to make larger donations than others. Donations are voluntary, but it feels like payment. Not sure why that was unclear earlier.
>> No. 20966 Anonymous
16th July 2016
Saturday 5:36 pm
20966 spacer
>>20965
>I do exorcisms
I want you to know even though I have never met you. I think you are a charlatan and I hate you.
>> No. 20967 Anonymous
16th July 2016
Saturday 5:45 pm
20967 spacer
>>20965
Tell us your exorcism stories.
>> No. 20968 Anonymous
16th July 2016
Saturday 7:37 pm
20968 spacer
>>20966

Don't be so judgemental lad, he might not be a charlatan, just a honest to goodness crazy person deluded fool religious nutjob.

I can't decide if I have more respect for a charlatan than a God botherer, come to think of it.
>> No. 20969 Anonymous
16th July 2016
Saturday 7:41 pm
20969 spacer
>>20966
He's doing God's work by relieving stupid people of the money that burdens them.
>> No. 20970 Anonymous
17th July 2016
Sunday 1:29 am
20970 spacer
>>20969

Only stupid cunts believe in the fucking made up god that they're too fucking stupid to realise it's all fucking made up.
>> No. 20971 Anonymous
17th July 2016
Sunday 1:37 am
20971 spacer
>>20970
How do you explain weird shit?
>> No. 20972 Anonymous
17th July 2016
Sunday 1:41 am
20972 spacer
>>20970
Great, now you're going to start a religion cunt-off where some other cunt comes along and smugly points out how bigoted modern athiesm supposedly is with your post as the proof.
>> No. 20973 Anonymous
17th July 2016
Sunday 2:52 am
20973 spacer
>>20972

May god strike me down for my hubris.
>> No. 20974 Anonymous
17th July 2016
Sunday 3:24 am
20974 spacer
>>20973

Said no muslamentalist ever.
>> No. 20975 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 4:24 am
20975 spacer
Just so this thread does actually have something funny in it, here's something made a few years ago by a great bunch of lads to go out on the lash with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHo3EbPrCcA
>> No. 20977 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 12:14 pm
20977 spacer
Simple Simon doesn't like the film either.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jul/18/leslie-jones-racist-tweets-ghostbusters
>> No. 20979 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 2:05 pm
20979 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEKreyTkvA
>> No. 20980 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 4:12 pm
20980 spacer
>>20979

Months, literally months, of endless stupid web-wide cunt-offs, and for what? Another mediocre American "comedy" where the punchline to every single joke is either "fart noise" or shouting. Imagine what could have been achieved if those man hours had been spent doing literally bugger all else? Even if they'd been used to dig a big hole at least then we could put a fence around it and keep all the morons who picked a side in this mind boggling cyber shitfest down there.

I fucking hate the Yanks. Why don't they hurry up and shoot themselves into extinction already?
>> No. 20981 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 5:36 pm
20981 spacer
>>20980
You could always, y'know, ignore internet controversies.
>> No. 20982 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 7:49 pm
20982 spacer
>>20980
I haven't really been following it, but it was/is really annoying how it popped up in the weirdest of places. I suppose this is a future now, what with our telecommunication, there will always be cunt-offs about fuck-all.
>> No. 20983 Anonymous
19th July 2016
Tuesday 10:23 pm
20983 spacer
>>20980

>man hours

Don't marginalize the women who contributed to the shitshow with your sexist language you mansplaining shitlord.
>> No. 20996 Anonymous
26th July 2016
Tuesday 10:35 am
20996 spacer
>>20983

>mansplaining

Do fuck off
>> No. 20997 Anonymous
26th July 2016
Tuesday 10:42 am
20997 spacer
>>20996
I need a humour transplant.
>> No. 21000 Anonymous
26th July 2016
Tuesday 12:23 pm
21000 spacer
>>20996

Whooosh!
>> No. 21001 Anonymous
26th July 2016
Tuesday 7:29 pm
21001 spacer
I'm tempted to go see it just to spite the bellends.
>> No. 21003 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 12:11 pm
21003 spacer
>>21001 Do it, it's actually a pretty fun movie if you don't go with any preconceptions or baggage, or are a raging impotent misogynist. The Kate McKinnon character's a real show stealer, and the effects are pretty awesome.
>> No. 21004 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 1:04 pm
21004 spacer
>>21001

Wait until you can pirate it, it's not worth it. Nothing to do with the politics surrounding it, it's just one of those tiresomely predictable average comedies. I laughed about twice as much watching the new Independence Day, and that wasn't even meant to be funny for the most part.

If you''re the sort of person who can happily watch multiple episodes of The Big Bang Theory without wondering what the fuck you are doing with your life then maybe you'd enjoy it.
>> No. 21005 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 2:02 pm
21005 spacer
So you can't dislike films with female leads or you're a misogynist?
>> No. 21006 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 2:17 pm
21006 spacer
>>21005

Does time move more slowly in your village?
>> No. 21007 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 2:24 pm
21007 spacer
>>21005
Who sincerely said that, anywhere?
>> No. 21008 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 2:25 pm
21008 spacer
>>21005 No-one said that, teenladm8. What you got there is a propositional fallacy.

Not everyone who dislikes the film is a misogynist. But misogynists won't like the film.
>> No. 21011 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 3:37 pm
21011 spacer
>>21007
Maybe I'm out of the loop but isn't that exactly what the director said?
>> No. 21012 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 5:19 pm
21012 spacer
>>21001
>>21003

Good job lads, we all need to do our part to #SmashThePatriarchy.
>> No. 21013 Anonymous
27th July 2016
Wednesday 5:56 pm
21013 spacer
>>21011
I wouldn't be surprised, judging from what I saw of him in the Half in the Bag posted in this thread, but what I also learnt from that is that he is a total mentalist, so we can easily disregard his opinion (and his film) as worth our time.

>>21012
Or maybe they just want to watch a silly film about ghosts without getting involved in all the politics?
>> No. 21037 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 9:50 pm
21037 spacer

obi wan.jpg
210372103721037
I felt a great disturbance in the thread, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in a cunt off and were suddenly silenced.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password