[ 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 ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 20422)
Message
File  []
close
ghostbusters-cartoon.jpg
204222042220422
>> No. 20422 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 4:15 pm
20422 I ain't afraid of no ghost
New Ghostbusters trailer


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw
Expand all images.
>> No. 20423 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 5:49 pm
20423 spacer
>>20422

Oh, aces, another reboot.
>> No. 20424 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:11 pm
20424 spacer
This looks beyond awful.
>> No. 20425 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:11 pm
20425 spacer
This looks beyond awful.
>> No. 20426 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:22 pm
20426 spacer
I dunno, from the trailer it's hard to tell, but I think it could turn out to be pretty good as far as reboots go.

The casting seems okay, and the characters seem well developed rather than just "lets make them all women just because."
>> No. 20427 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:29 pm
20427 spacer
>>20426

>the characters seem well developed rather than just "lets make them all women just because."

I had the exact opposite reaction, but I don't think it is fair for me to judge off one trailer.
>> No. 20428 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:44 pm
20428 spacer
>>20426

My particular favourite is strong, streetwise independent black woman (who presumably don't need no man).

The comedy in the trailer's mostly fallen flat for me so I don't have many hopes for this at all.
>> No. 20429 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 8:49 pm
20429 spacer

MOhuV7p.jpg
204292042920429
It's going to be utterly shite. I can guarantee that the copypasta about them visiting this girl in hospital will be far funnier than the entire film.
>> No. 20430 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 9:21 pm
20430 spacer
It just looks like a standard big budget Hollywood FX film, with a few jokes shoved in. It's literally exactly what anyone should expect for a reboot. I fail to see how the actors genders change anything, since they're only there for joke delivery and as a means to move the story from one set piece to another.

Also, Ghostbusters really wasn't that good the first time around.
>> No. 20431 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 10:35 pm
20431 spacer
>>20430

>Also, Ghostbusters really wasn't that good the first time around.

So, you're that guy.
>> No. 20432 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 10:44 pm
20432 spacer
>>20429>>20430>>20431

It's a film for children.
>> No. 20433 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 11:02 pm
20433 spacer
>>20432

>A film for children

I can only assume you've never seen Ghostbusters if you think that film was, in anyway, aimed at a younger audience.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc4g1glBT8U
>> No. 20434 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 11:06 pm
20434 spacer
>>20431

What does that mean? It was just a silly romp. People are acting like they're repainting the Sistine Chapel or something. The original film wasn't some masterpiece, and even if you do think it was, the new one existing takes exactly nothing away from the original. It still exists, and is still as good (or limp and corny) as you remember.
>> No. 20435 Anonymous
3rd March 2016
Thursday 11:43 pm
20435 spacer
>Ghostbusters really wasn't that good the first time around.
This.
The good things about the original were the theme song and the Zuul meme. This one seems to have the girl-in-hospital copypasta and the same song except louder, so it's pretty much exactly the same as far as I'm concerned.
>> No. 20436 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 12:19 am
20436 spacer
>>20435

What the fuck has a meme got to do with the relative quality of a film?
>> No. 20437 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 12:37 am
20437 spacer
>>20436
I just couldn't think of any other good things about it.
>> No. 20438 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 12:52 am
20438 spacer
>>20434

You're messing with a powerful force: 80s kid nostalgia.

Next you'll be saying Back to the Future is just that slightly naff film that's always on ITV in the afternoon at Christmas.
>> No. 20439 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:02 am
20439 spacer
>>20438

I never get tired of the incest jokes in that film.
>> No. 20440 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:10 am
20440 spacer
When I went back and rewatched Ghostbusters I found it to be quite badly written - one of them has an idea to form a ghostbusting team, his two friends just go 'alright' and then everything just falls into place as though it were always a fully-formed idea from the start. Which from the point of view of the screenwriters it is, but it shouldn't appear that way in the film.
>> No. 20441 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:18 am
20441 spacer
>>20440

There is nothing badly written about not getting bogged down in the minutia. There isn't a story worth telling that doesn't skip over some detail to move the story along at a reasonable pace, you surely must be aware of this.
>> No. 20443 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:26 am
20443 spacer

marysue.jpg
204432044320443
Women it is now a requirement that you give this movie your unwavering loyalty.
>> No. 20444 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 1:28 am
20444 spacer
>>20440

They had all the shit to capture ghosts there already, they knew ghosts existed, the business was a front to collect subjects and fund the research. Up until they lose their tenure, they were at the forefront of their field and had all the funding of the University behind them, so they get fired with everything they needed to start a ghostbusting business in their possession.

The thing there that leaves you scratching your head is why the University let them keep the equipment, but as they thought they were a trio of cracked pots it can be brushed off fairly easily.

It's also a Fucking Sci-fa flick, you're expected to suspend your disbelief until the credits roll.
>> No. 20445 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 2:29 am
20445 spacer
>>20438

>You're messing with a powerful force: 80s kid nostalgia

That was my suspicion. I don't get that either. Grown men are genuinely upset that a film they liked as a child is being remade. We all know fine well they'd have found something to be upset about even if they'd cast men, or even fucking got Bill Murray in it.

Maybe I've just never been a big enough fan of something, but I just can't empathise with these people.
>> No. 20446 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 4:37 pm
20446 spacer
>>20433
>Creepy Ghost Bed.

I feel this is somewhat obligatory.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tdyU_gW6WE
>> No. 20447 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 5:43 pm
20447 spacer

Indiana-Jones-And-The-Kingdom-Of-The-Crystal-Skull.jpg
204472044720447
>>20445
>I don't get that either. Grown men are genuinely upset that a film they liked as a child is being remade.

Sometimes they go too far.
>> No. 20449 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 5:48 pm
20449 spacer
Thank heavens they didn't put an Asian actress in the main cast or I don't think the people already losing their shit about this would be able to stop themselves from bursting into flames.
>> No. 20451 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 11:08 pm
20451 spacer
>>20422
Over 200 000 thumbs down. Impressive.
>> No. 20452 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 2:13 am
20452 spacer
>>20445

>I don't get that either. Grown men are genuinely upset that a film they liked as a child is being remade.

I presumed the idea of treating a nostalgic relic as sacristan is a core part of our monkey brain and relatively universal. It is the assigning of emotional value to things, and part of that is creating hang ups. The same way you wouldn't appreciate me smashing your souvenirs with a hammer. You have assigned an idea to those things that you rather not see disrupted, it just so happens that in this case you emotional ownership, has no relation to legal control, and naturally when they have no other outlet they are going to voice a negative opinion.
>> No. 20453 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 7:48 am
20453 spacer
>>20449
Don't be silly. Asian actresses don't exist.
>> No. 20454 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 9:52 am
20454 spacer
It's a sequel, innit? Not a reboot?

Also; I can't believe that dislike of this film is rooted in anything apart from raw sexism.
>> No. 20455 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 10:26 am
20455 spacer
>>20454

RLM call them, very appropriately, "soft reboots". Meaning that while it doesn't throw out the old plot, it has more or less nothing to do with it.

And I do think a lot of it is just sexism. I've been sick and tired of films from the 80's and 90's being rebooted since it first became commonplace, whereas most people don't seem to give a shit, until there's one with four women in the lead roles, replacing the original cast of four men. I'm not one for coincidence, and it's not the first time issues that have been ignored in main have suddenly garnered a bevy of ire when women became involved. "Gamergate", anyone?
>> No. 20456 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 10:26 am
20456 spacer
>>20454
>dislike of this film is rooted in anything apart from raw sexism.

Maybe people finally have remake fatigue? It doesn't help that the trailer is poorly paced so all the jokes fall on their arse. There is a fan trailer already that looks like a better movie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0
>> No. 20457 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 10:31 am
20457 spacer
>>20454
My dislike of it is based on that trailer. Cringingly unfunny, there had better be a decent plot or some other redeeming feature. Ah well, I guess it'll drive sales of the originals, 'to teach the studio a lesson'.
>> No. 20458 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 11:02 am
20458 spacer
>>20455

>"Gamergate", anyone

If anything gamergate seems to be the reverse. This is just sexism disguised as a issue no one cared about before. Gamergate (to start off with before the media circus) was a issue people cared about disguised as just sexism.

There was a long standing criticism of the leftist politicizing of games industry and questionable journalistic integrity (such as Doritosgate http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-24-lost-humanity-18-a-table-of-doritos).

It was only when it was a woman at the heart of the maelstrom of questionable journalistic integrity that those accused could cried sexism, and those who hadn't been following the issues for the past years ate up that justification, because they really had no awareness of the power plays that had been going on in the game industry for the years previous, and the storm that followed really made it impossible for any sensible discussion of the topic anymore.
>> No. 20459 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 12:13 pm
20459 spacer
>>20455

I think that films like this and some of the recent forays into feminist friendly comic reboots are attempts to cynically crack into an emerging audience of the progressive readers of The Mary-Sue and so on. They know that these websites will treat the product as if it is championing a cause and likely generate a bit of controversy while they are at it. Nerds are very harsh critics, but in these cases it can be easily dismissed as sexism. I wonder if they even showcased some of the poorer jokes on the trailer to generate as much froth as possible.

The problem with the mainstream feminist audience is that outside of tweeting and sharing articles, they are probably not going to be valuable enough. If the film tanks, they can just blame it on sexism though.
>> No. 20460 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 12:49 pm
20460 spacer
>>20459

>think that films like this and some of the recent forays into feminist friendly comic reboots are attempts to cynically crack into an emerging audience of the progressive readers of The Mary-Sue and so on.

Absolutely no doubt about it, yeah. I mean, I wouldn't say it's wholly cynical, or really negative as an overall trend. However, in the case of the Ghostbusters reboot I'd wager it is. Hollywood actors might be all cuddly and liberal, but the people who sign the cheques couldn't give a damn.
>> No. 20461 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 1:17 pm
20461 spacer
Femsploitation.
>> No. 20462 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 1:27 pm
20462 spacer
>>20443
Didn't The Mary Sue have an article just a couple of days ago saying that the new Ghostbusters was bad because the only POC on the team is the only non-scientist on the team? So if you don't go see it, you're supporting misogyny; but if you do go see it, you're supporting racism. What a quandary.
>> No. 20463 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 1:40 pm
20463 spacer
>>20462
I guess the only way to minimise the damage is to buy a ticket but not actually sit through it.
>> No. 20464 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 3:58 pm
20464 spacer
>>20459
What has me confused about all of this is what the hell Sony thinks it is doing. It wasn't even a year ago that they did Fantastic Four and well...remember this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P60yFdE3io

The film bombed and so will Ghostbusters. Next one to bomb is looking like a reboot and sequel of Girl with a Dragon Tattoo without Daniel Craig and allegedly without Rooney Mara either (if another spiderman movie doesn't get released first: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-spinoff-venom-revived-872844).

Does Sony not like money or is this just a cynical game of keeping the rights to franchises while at the same time changing around parts to address the criticism they got for rebooting Spiderman franchise so soon?
>> No. 20465 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 4:16 pm
20465 spacer
>>20464
To be fair, the Fantastic Four reboot being shit was due to trying too hard. The writer/director wanted to do a body-horror relatively serious sci-fi movie based on Fantastic Four, making a big deal about the weirdness of going into space and coming back elastic or invisible or capable of bursting into flames or being made of rock. Sony wanted to do a more marketable family movie with the familiar elements of the Fantastic Four, with the jumpsuits and saving New York from Doctor Doom with their wacky powers.

The result was a cast that wasn't close enough to classic FF due to being too young or having slightly different backgrounds, but the action was done in such a way that was too comic book movie-ish to be a gritty sci-fi horror, and the writing was too dry and SFish for a successful comic book blockbuster, but the comic's "Mr Fantastic and The Invisible Woman fight Viktor Von Doom" plot meant it couldn't be taken seriously as a proper work of SF.

Ghostbusters reboot looks bad because of how lazy it is. Cast popular female comic actors whose characters appear to be analogues of the original Ghostbusters crew, and just stick to the established formula the originals had.
>> No. 20466 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 5:38 pm
20466 spacer
>>20464
>Does Sony not like money

Aren't they the ones who keep making Adam Sandler films?
>> No. 20467 Anonymous
5th March 2016
Saturday 6:22 pm
20467 spacer
>>20463
How about if I see it but don't pay for a ticket?

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password