Ghostbusters Trailer

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

    It is one of the worst trailers I have seen in a long while. I will still see it, but I'm not expecting much.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

      Getting good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes -- 75%

      Doesn't change the fact that it's still a feminist gimmick
      I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

        Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
        Getting good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes -- 75%

        Doesn't change the fact that it's still a feminist gimmick
        I can't believe people are still bitching about this. Really.

        In the whole scheme of things, it's a remarkably silly thing to get angry about.

        Ivan Reitman had been trying for years to do a Ghostbusters sequel. Bill Murray wasn't interested, which prevented it from happening. In an interview he recently conducted, Reitman says the following:

        -- "And then Harold died [in February 2014] before we could get anywhere. That's when I decided, This is just too tough, that I should try to find somebody with another kind of idea. So I focused on changing the deal so that it would be possible to actually make another Ghostbusters movie."

        --"My movie, by the way, the one that I was working on before Harold died, had both male and female ghostbusters in it. The first movie [in 1984] was made as it was because we all knew each other and were involved from the conception point. There wasn't even thought about gender. It was just, "These guys are all funny, we're going to do it." The Ernie Hudson character actually came in a little bit later because we needed a fourth person to explain things for the audience. So that's why all this gender conversation is a little surprising to me."

        --"...that it was male-exclusive. I never thought that either! None of us did. Look, we had the original comic books, which were very popular, and there were women ghostbusters in the stories right away. I think it's just an issue that it was a very beloved film - fortunately for all of us - and people who become fans, particularly at an early age, have an almost-religious belief in what the iconography of a story has to be. It's very strict."

        http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/ivan-...murray-qa.html

        So as you can see, Paul Feig's all-female take wasn't completely out of left field for the movie's world. In fact, it was an extension of an idea Reitman already had in pursuing a sequel. The original movie was only all-male because Reitman was friends with a bunch of male comics that he thought would be good for the characters. Much the same way Feig was friends with a bunch of female comics that he thought would be good for the characters.

        Movie reboots change things all the time in order to provide a fresh angle. This angle happened to be gender.

        It might be problematic if it violated some core rules established in the first two movies. But the last time I checked -- there wasn't any law established in either that in order to fight ghosts, you need to have a penis.

        If there was, I'd love for you to point it out.
        "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

          Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
          Getting good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes -- 75%
          Which gives zero indication as to whether a film is good or bad; indeed, less so than ever.

          More pertinently, it's at 4.3/10 on IMDb, and while that's not always an ideal measure either, it tends to be much closer to the truth than critics' scores.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

            Originally posted by karsten View Post
            More pertinently, it's at 4.3/10 on IMDb, and while that's not always an ideal measure either, it tends to be much closer to the truth than critics' scores.
            I'm sorry, but that's just laughable. First of all, it's possible to rate a movie on IMDB before it has actually come out, meaning people can weigh in without actually having seen it (so, not accurate at all). Second, there has been a coordinated campaign among the haters of the new Ghostbusters to sink its rating on IMDB
            (http://screencrush.com/ghostbusters-imdb-what-the/). It has received over 700 ratings of 1/10 before even opening. Interestingly, the ratings break down like this:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/

            So as you can see, a lot of angry men who haven't yet seen the movie have given it low ratings, while a lot of women who haven't seen it have given it high ratings (probably to counteract the male campaign). Of course, male IMDB reviewers vastly outnumber female ones (by 5 to 1), so the ultimate result is low. Thus, this rating is less indicative of true feelings about the movie than it is some kind of gender war.

            Sadly, this is not the first time this has happened, as there are studies showing that men are far more likely to give extremely low IMDB ratings to female-driven movies and shows even when they receive high ratings among critics (e.g., "Sex and the City"). If that's not some kind of reflexive sexism, I don't know what is. We live in a sad culture.
            "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

              Originally posted by karsten View Post
              Which gives zero indication as to whether a film is good or bad; indeed, less so than ever.

              More pertinently, it's at 4.3/10 on IMDb, and while that's not always an ideal measure either, it tends to be much closer to the truth than critics' scores.
              That's just a bunch of people rating it 1 who haven't even seen it.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                Apparently, contrary to some opinions (not mine), a new generation of Ghostbuster fans seems ready for this all-female cast reboot. Kristen Wiig photo

                From Harold Ramis' daughter, Violet Ramis Stiel, regarding Ghostbuster haters.
                Last edited by TigerFang; 07-15-2016, 08:57 PM.
                "Go to the edge of the cliff and jump off. Build your wings on the way down.- - Ray Bradbury

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                  Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
                  So as you can see, Paul Feig's all-female take wasn't completely out of left field for the movie's world. In fact, it was an extension of an idea Reitman already had in pursuing a sequel. The original movie was only all-male because Reitman was friends with a bunch of male comics that he thought would be good for the characters. Much the same way Feig was friends with a bunch of female comics that he thought would be good for the characters.
                  You know, when I first heard it was going to be an all-female cast I actually thought it wasn't a bad idea. I thought it could work.

                  But when I learned a A-list alpha male megastar (Chris Hemsworth) was playing a "secretary" the film took on the life of a feminist gimmick. It was now intentionally crapping on the man-power angle of the original.
                  I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                    Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                    You know, when I first heard it was going to be an all-female cast I actually thought it wasn't a bad idea. I thought it could work.

                    But when I learned a A-list alpha male megastar (Chris Hemsworth) was playing a "secretary" the film took on the life of a feminist gimmick. It was now intentionally crapping on the man-power angle of the original.
                    What do you mean by "man power" angle of the original? It was just a comedy with four male leads.

                    The update is just a comedy where the leads are female. Of course there's going to be some male eye candy.

                    And BTW -- Chris Hemsworth is by no means an "A-list megastar". His only hit movies have been the "Thor" movies, and their success has more to do with the Marvel brand than him. Outside of that, he has experienced bomb after bomb after bomb ("The Huntsman", "In the Heart of the Sea", "Blackhat", "Rush", etc.). He has yet to prove to be a solo draw, and at this point, I doubt he ever will be.

                    It's fascinating how some people think that when gender roles are reversed, something is automatically "feminist". There's an implication there that woman aren't allowed to do certain things that men are without it being seen as some kind of statement. Encourage you to examine why you feel that way.
                    "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                      Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
                      What do you mean by "man power" angle of the original? It was just a comedy with four male leads.
                      No. It wasn't. It started with three weird nerds no one liked (very relatable to men) and by the end of the film they saved the world, became heroes, and (one) got the girl.

                      Why do you think men connected with it on such an emotional level? I was just reading an article on how Reitman was bombarded with 30-40 something males who grew up with the originals who were now aghast at the new casting choices.

                      I'm certainly not one of those, but I'm also not blind. They've reversed the script. Now 4 women overcome a litany of obstacles, save the world, and become super heroes while the lone male character idles in a chair answering phones.
                      I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                        Over here, we're having a hard time comprehending why there's so much venom spewed forth over an updated reboot of a hit film for children because its lead characters are now women.
                        "Go to the edge of the cliff and jump off. Build your wings on the way down.- - Ray Bradbury

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                          Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                          No. It wasn't. It started with three weird nerds no one liked (very relatable to men) and by the end of the film they saved the world, became heroes, and (one) got the girl.
                          Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                          They've reversed the script. Now 4 women overcome a litany of obstacles, save the world, and become super heroes while the lone male character idles in a chair answering phones.
                          All men can relate to being weird nerds that no one likes? No, sir. All men don't.

                          All nerds can relate to being nerds -- yes. And guess what? There are female nerds, too. There are women who are socially awkward, who are afraid of facing a lot of obstacles and going after their goals. That's not distinctly a "male" thing. That's a human thing.

                          There are also women who find it hard to approach a guy they might like. This is particularly the case if the guy doesn't show any interest in them -- in which case, they have to "get the guy" themselves. So there is nothing unrealistic about having a movie that shows this.

                          Your way of thinking suggests that only men are interested in engaging in active pursuit of a goal, including a love interest. It is a very rigid, narrow-minded way of viewing gender roles -- one ingrained by viewing hundreds of movies promoting this idea -- movies produced by an industry primarily run by men -- Hollywood. You don't even realize that this mentality is abnormal because you have been conditioned to think otherwise.

                          Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                          Why do you think men connected with it on such an emotional level? I was just reading an article on how Reitman was bombarded with 30-40 something males who grew up with the originals who were now aghast at the new casting choices.
                          I think a lot of these men are suffering from the same type of thinking you've expressed. And that's understandable -- they don't understand how deeply they've been conditioned either. But it's one thing to be upset about the role reversal. It's another thing to actively wage a campaign against a movie that you haven't even seen yet.

                          Going out of your way to make the trailer the most disliked in history and to tank the movie's ratings is indicative of something rather disturbing -- that you believe that women in movies should only fulfill one type of role, the character who waits for men to save the world and then "get them." Either that, or you just hate all women because you haven't been able to get laid/go on a date in a long time. Which, considering the nerd demographic of many of the men who are obsessed with "Ghostbusters", is not quite out of the realm of possibility, lol.

                          For people who continue to be so butthurt about this reboot, some reminders:

                          --The original movie was never meant to be specifically all-male; it just came out that way because of Reitman being friendly with male comics

                          --Ivan Reitman tried for a long time to make the sequel with the original cast, but it didn't happen. Paul Feig actually saved the day by coming up with a fresh spin that Sony liked. It's not like they didn't consider a version with males -- Max Landis was one of many people who gave pitches to the studio. Sony just thought Feig's version was the best.

                          --This movie does nothing to erase the original. It's not like they tried to make the female characters slightly altered versions of the original ones. They made them their own, new characters, with a new world.

                          --There is always the possibility that there will be a male-led reboot in the future. In fact, one with Channing Tatum and Chris Pratt was being actively explored. So it's ridiculous to act as if this version is the be-all, end-all.

                          I feel this whole fiasco has served to show not only that a lot of geek culture is extremely sexist (as if Gamergate didn't do that already), but that a lot of men in general are more sexist than they are even aware. I encourage those men to think about their sisters or daughters who might be excited about the prospect of a movie with female Ghostbusters. Or, just take a look at this picture:

                          http://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/Kr...photo-41952773
                          "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                            Originally posted by TigerFang View Post
                            Over here, we're having a hard time comprehending why there's so much venom spewed forth over an updated reboot of a hit film for children because its lead characters are now women.
                            There really isn't that much *controversy* over this film (which is, at the end of the day, a mediocre remake of a film that was mediocre to begin with).

                            However, the entertainment news media have learned very well, from studying the political news media, that manufacturing outrage on a daily basis is just as valuable an ancillary revenue stream as toys and merch.

                            It isn't so much that people won't stop complaining about this film, it's that the newspapers won't stop defending it against the imaginary detractors.

                            Of course the low Imdb and YouTube ratings are fraudulent and meaningless.

                            But then so is the *FRESH* rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

                            Here are some positive Ghostbusters "reviews" from 3 major American newspapers:

                            http://www.orlandosentinel.com/enter...711-story.html

                            http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertai...711-story.html

                            http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...711-story.html


                            If you click on the links, you'll notice that all 3 are the same review, copy-pasted from the AP.

                            Why?.... Because 90% of the newspapers in America are owned by the same 5 corporations (which in turn are owned by the same 10 billionaires).

                            Why are the richest people in the world so heavily invested in a dying, bankrupt business, you ask?

                            Because as long as the citizens are busy spending their days being outraged and inventing new Diversity Hashtags in order to to boost their likes and followers, they won't have time to realize that their future has been plundered by the .001%.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                              Just in case anyone has doubts as to this movie's awfulness, this is the clip Sony's been using to sell it.

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iGTttlUMR8

                              Apparently they thought this was one of the better scenes in the film.

                              Paul Feig is a typical 2010s filmmaker who thinks that comedy is a bunch of unappealing characters spouting pop culture references and snark. I caught a scene from Spy on TV recently that consisted of the main character (the fat woman) pointlessly ragging on a guy and being a combative bitch for no reason. Who's giving this guy rave reviews? The Farrelly Brothers at their worst are geniuses compared to him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                                If the critical consensus is at all to be trusted, then people giving this a vindication watch will enjoy it because they want to. People giving it a hate watch will hate it because they want to. It's not quite willing to stand on its own legs, which hurts it, but a lot of the team that assembled it is talented enough to make it tolerable.

                                I can't say any of this authoritatively, since I intend to catch the Netflix premiere, but when a lot of critics are going "Meh," and the positive reviews are directed at "haters," and the negative reviews are directed at "evil boob-havers," it feels like the movie is basically a non-offensive non-event if you peel away anybody's bias.

                                Red Letter Media pointed out something that I felt previously; that making it a female cast was possibly a step in the right direction. When they were talking an Indiana Jones remake with Chris Pratt, I felt it sounded like the most boring thing possible. You know they'd hit every single predictable note possible, and that at best it would be a well-made bad movie. Then Megan Fox casually stated in an interview that she'd like to play the role and Gamespot's user base blew up at Hollywood, but I think that's the move that would have all the potential. She can do that kind of funny, she's capable of physicality, and maybe some sharp filmmaker would decide to make that flick enough of its own beast.

                                Which is the long way of getting to the point that it sounds like Feig's crew tried to have it both ways and just wound up with something that was neither.

                                But again, that's no strong prediction. Maybe I'll see the movie sooner than later and find out for myself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X