Page 4 of 47
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 8:01 pm
by RussellManiac12
Mecca wrote:It looks bad. I'm surprised to see people react positively to it on social media.
It's probably just because they're all females. If it was all guys people would probably say "just another shitty remake."
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 8:08 pm
by Mecca
RussellManiac12 wrote:Mecca wrote:It looks bad. I'm surprised to see people react positively to it on social media.
It's probably just because they're all females. If it was all guys people would probably say "just another shitty remake."
There's definitely some tinge of that, but coupled with "you don't like this because it's all women." Is it really so hard for people to look at that trailer and not realize it looks just like a trailer for Pixels?
At least Kate McKinnon is getting a chance to feature besides just SNL?
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 9:43 pm
by dimejinky99
There is a huge amount of overbearing meninism for this, both on RM and elsewhere online..
Star Wars went through the same trauma when the trailers dropped and the lead was a girl and shock horror a black guy..if it was the original team standing there you guys would be all over this.
you'll get over it. I hope so anyways.
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 9:50 pm
by Rangi Guy
dimejinky99 wrote:There is a huge amount of overbearing meninism for this, both on RM and elsewhere online..
Star Wars went through the same trauma when the trailers dropped and the lead was a girl and shock horror a black guy..if it was the original team standing there you guys would be all over this.
you'll get over it. I hope so anyways.
It's got nothing to do with the cast - it just to do with the forced humour and how much this could be one of Adam Sandler's latest films
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 9:54 pm
by BurtReynolds
dimejinky99 wrote:There is a huge amount of overbearing meninism for this, both on RM and elsewhere online..
Star Wars went through the same trauma when the trailers dropped and the lead was a girl and shock horror a black guy..if it was the original team standing there you guys would be all over this.
you'll get over it. I hope so anyways.
Is it your dashing good looks that caused you to slack off on the books and make yourself retarded?
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:18 pm
by BurtReynolds
E.H. Ruddock wrote:lennytheweedwhacker wrote:E.H. Ruddock wrote:lennytheweedwhacker wrote:Mecca wrote:It looks bad. I'm surprised to see people react positively to it on social media.
i'm not even watching the trailer...i like mckinnon, hate jones, and think mccarthy and wiig are vastly overrated
do you think verb likes mccarthy?
i think verb would literally spit on her
i thought she was really good in st. vincent...i'd like to see her go beyond the loud, fat shtick more
I liked that movie "Spy" with her in it but that was more because Jason Statham was hilarious.
I like McCarthy a lot. She brings a lot of humanity to her roles, even the silly ones. Can't stand Wiig though. She's just corny. I dunno about the other two.
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:22 pm
by Mecca
dimejinky99 wrote:There is a huge amount of overbearing meninism for this, both on RM and elsewhere online..
Star Wars went through the same trauma when the trailers dropped and the lead was a girl and shock horror a black guy..if it was the original team standing there you guys would be all over this.
you'll get over it. I hope so anyways.
I'd say it's been pretty tame here on RM. the movie looks bad, dime.
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:31 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:39 pm
by epilogue
I'll definitely give it a fair shot. The trailer was weird but not because of the cast. These ladies look like they can definitely handle themselves.
Still optimistic. And will still see this in theaters.
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:39 pm
by dimejinky99
Ok..look at it this way..imagine the possibility that the got the surviving members of the original crew back, and for whatever reasons, and probably given theyre all near to being ghosts themselves, it didnt work..
then compare that to what they chose to do, which is give it new life and fuck yeah it's about time we see a film in this genre lead by females instead of males,(and that's probably why it won't set the box-office on fire)
which would you choose?
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:44 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:46 pm
by Jorge
Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying "women shouldn't front blockbusters!". Well some people probably are, but that's irrelevant.
I'm not even against the idea of an all-women Ghostbusters reboot.
This one just... seems kinda... not great?! Based on this one trailer and the creative pedigree.
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:52 pm
by epilogue
theplatypus wrote:Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying "women shouldn't front blockbusters!". Well some people probably are, but that's irrelevant.
I don't think anyone around
here is saying that. You're right. But the internet... ? Oh my how the internet is saying exactly that!
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:52 pm
by BurtReynolds
dimejinky99 wrote:Ok..look at it this way..imagine the possibility that the got the surviving members of the original crew back, and for whatever reasons, and probably given theyre all near to being ghosts themselves, it didnt work..
then compare that to what they chose to do, which is give it new life and fuck yeah it's about time we see a film in this genre lead by females instead of males,(and that's probably why it won't set the box-office on fire)
which would you choose?
So my choice is between a hypothetically bad movie starring the old cast or a safe and needless remake with the old cast replaced with women (because fuck yeah?)? Why are these my only choices? Why would I pick one? How about a good movie with the old cast? What about a movie with female characters who aren't forced into pale imitations of male ones? They are just being set up to fail. How are women benefited by this? How is a lockstep remake "giving it new life" and not soulless pandering?
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:56 pm
by BurtReynolds
durdencommatyler wrote:theplatypus wrote:Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying "women shouldn't front blockbusters!". Well some people probably are, but that's irrelevant.
I don't think anyone around
here is saying that. You're right. But the internet... ? Oh my how the internet is saying exactly that!
What percentage of the internet would you put it at?
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 10:58 pm
by Strat
star wars
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 11:02 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 11:04 pm
by spike
BurtReynolds wrote:dimejinky99 wrote:Ok..look at it this way..imagine the possibility that the got the surviving members of the original crew back, and for whatever reasons, and probably given theyre all near to being ghosts themselves, it didnt work..
then compare that to what they chose to do, which is give it new life and fuck yeah it's about time we see a film in this genre lead by females instead of males,(and that's probably why it won't set the box-office on fire)
which would you choose?
So my choice is between a hypothetically bad movie starring the old cast or a safe and needless remake with the old cast replaced with women (because fuck yeah?)? Why are these my only choices? Why would I pick one? How about a good movie with the old cast? What about a movie with female characters who aren't forced into pale imitations of male ones? They are just being set up to fail. How are women benefited by this? How is a lockstep remake "giving it new life" and not soulless pandering?
You've sure gleaned an amazing amount from a two minute trailer. Do you even bother seeing movies, having this amazing ability at your disposal?
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 11:05 pm
by Mecca
durdencommatyler wrote:theplatypus wrote:Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying "women shouldn't front blockbusters!". Well some people probably are, but that's irrelevant.
I don't think anyone around
here is saying that. You're right. But the internet... ? Oh my how the internet is saying exactly that!
I think the only sentiment even close to it is "do we have to prop up something that looks like it will be bad just because of the cast?"
Re: Ghostbusters (2016)
Posted: Thu March 03, 2016 11:06 pm
by BurtReynolds
spike wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:dimejinky99 wrote:Ok..look at it this way..imagine the possibility that the got the surviving members of the original crew back, and for whatever reasons, and probably given theyre all near to being ghosts themselves, it didnt work..
then compare that to what they chose to do, which is give it new life and fuck yeah it's about time we see a film in this genre lead by females instead of males,(and that's probably why it won't set the box-office on fire)
which would you choose?
So my choice is between a hypothetically bad movie starring the old cast or a safe and needless remake with the old cast replaced with women (because fuck yeah?)? Why are these my only choices? Why would I pick one? How about a good movie with the old cast? What about a movie with female characters who aren't forced into pale imitations of male ones? They are just being set up to fail. How are women benefited by this? How is a lockstep remake "giving it new life" and not soulless pandering?
You've sure gleaned an amazing amount from a two minute trailer. Do you even bother seeing movies, having this amazing ability at your disposal?
That's probably the worst post you've ever made. Frankly, I'm ashamed of you.