Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4881689
Raystantz Italy wrote:
Roger Rabbit wrote:
The events of the previous films seemingly were, making a bunch of references to them is not the same as following the continuity.

POW!!!!!
It's OK. Fictional continuity can't hurt me. But your preoccupation with it is causing you grief in this case. ;)
Plus, by asserting that they have same themes and elements you reinforce the notion that this reboot is useless.
By that criteria, a sequel would also be useless. That's what GBII is always knocked for, being a rehash. And I certainly don't agree with that.
A spiritual successor doesn't expand upon the old movies like Roger (and me) wants.
Doesn't mean the original movies were ignored or disrespected. In this case, quite the opposite. There's more than one way to incorporate and acknowledge the original material. Just because it's not the way you want, doesn't mean it's wrong.

You guys really ought to spend some time in the Transformers fandom. Their different continuity families exist quite happily without anyone insisting the original continuity has been "erased."
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on September 27th, 2016, 4:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sav C liked this
#4881690
Roger Rabbit wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the term "spiritual successor"?
Who are these "same creators" you speak of? Reitman has a producer credit on the remake which doesn't tell how involved he was in the actual making of the film. The returning cast members had cameos and nothing to do with the writing or directing as far as I know.
Look at it this way. That Filmation Ghostbusters cartoon doesn't have the credit "Based on the Ghostbusters created by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis." It can't. But GB16 does, and with good reason. That sort of credit isn't put into a film just to be nice. GB16 directly relies on the terminology and look GB84 set up. Filmation Ghostbusters doesn't, their weapon of choice is a "Ghost Gummer." But GB16 very obviously incorporates the PKE Meters and Proton Packs that go along with the GB84 mythos. And GB16 contains much the same themes of GB84: A team of snarky academics (and one everyman/woman) attempt to save NYC from the supernatural, all the while facing ridicule by establishment science and government.

Plus, the writing for the cameos is directly designed to reflect the significance of the returning casts members. Cameos by their very nature have significance, they aren't just glorified extras.
#4881695
Did I waste my valuable time typing all that stuff about the credits, terminology, and themes? I don't like it when my time is wasted. ;)

Cameos are a form of 4th Wall breaking. Their purpose isn't generally to affect the bare bones plot. The focus is on the actor, because of their significance to the property. It's not about the "characters" they're playing. That's not a fault in the writing, that's the nature of what a cameo is.

Cameos are meta, meaning they are self referential. Meaning the GB84 and GB16 stories are different parts of the same self.
Alphagaia liked this
#4881696
JurorNo.2 wrote: I don't like it when my time is wasted. ;)
You're discussing in a fan forum. Get used to it.
JurorNo.2 wrote: Cameos are a form of 4th Wall breaking. Their purpose isn't generally to affect the bare bones plot. The focus is on the actor, because of their significance to the property. It's not about the "characters" they're playing. That's not a fault in the writing, that's the nature of what a cameo is.

Cameos are meta, meaning they are self referential. Meaning the GB84 and GB16 stories are different parts of the same self.
The cameos do create a connection to the old film, but that doesn't mean it makes the new film any better or truer to the spirit of the original. Just cause a cameo is made by a person who has some kinda connection to the property doesn't make the film more important in my book. They have little relevance to the actual quality of the film and they do not act as a "seal of approval" or anything. Stephen King has made a ton of them in the adaptations of his books, and plenty of these films are terrible.
#4881697
Well that's where we can agree to disagree. I don't think the mere lip service of "it's a sequel, honest!" makes a movie better or more important. Nor is it a guarantee that the spirit of the original is being respected.

And we weren't talking about whether you personally would like the movie. We were talking about whether a connection exists (which it does).

And btw, "some kind of connection" is a bit of an understatement in this case. ;) I'm using words like "significance" to describe the original cast, and you guys continually do the opposite. It's very strange. It's like you don't acknowledge the existence of the actors unless they literally announce, "Hi, I am literally playing Peter Venkman at this moment. Look at me, I'm Dr. Venkman."

And what exactly am I to get used to? Fans ignoring points that disprove their own? I'm quite used to that, lol.
Alphagaia liked this
#4881700
JurorNo.2 wrote:And we weren't talking about whether you personally would like the movie. We were talking about whether a connection exists (which it does).
And I can't debate wether or not these supposed connections are important/good because?
JurorNo.2 wrote:And btw, "some kind of connection" is a bit of an understatement in this case. ;)
Please elaborate instead smiling or loling, feels like you're just laughing off my arguments.
JurorNo.2 wrote:I'm using words like "significance" to describe the original cast, and you guys continually do the opposite. It's very strange. It's like you don't acknowledge the existence of the actors unless they literally announce, "Hi, I am literally playing Peter Venkman at this moment. Look at me, I'm Dr. Venkman.";)
Of course I acknowledge the actors, I never said otherwise. I just see how they connect to the original when they are playing two entirely different characters.
JurorNo.2 wrote:And what exactly am I to get used to? Fans ignoring points that disprove their own? I'm quite used to that, lol.
That has happened on both sides.
#4881701
Roger Rabbit wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:And we weren't talking about whether you personally would like the movie. We were talking about whether a connection exists (which it does).
And I can't debate wether or not these supposed connections are important/good because?
JurorNo.2 wrote:And btw, "some kind of connection" is a bit of an understatement in this case. ;)
Please elaborate instead smiling or loling, feels like you're just laughing off my arguments.
JurorNo.2 wrote:I'm using words like "significance" to describe the original cast, and you guys continually do the opposite. It's very strange. It's like you don't acknowledge the existence of the actors unless they literally announce, "Hi, I am literally playing Peter Venkman at this moment. Look at me, I'm Dr. Venkman.";)
Of course I acknowledge the actors, I never said otherwise. I just see how they connect to the original when they are playing two entirely different characters.
JurorNo.2 wrote:And what exactly am I to get used to? Fans ignoring points that disprove their own? I'm quite used to that, lol.
That has happened on both sides.
::sigh:: No one said you "can't." The point is let's conclude our first debate before inserting a new one in to the mix. Especially when you haven't even seen the movie you feel you're qualified to debate.

I don't think I need to elaborate on why the original cast (and writers) is far more than just "some kind of connection." And excuse me, I've very much made the effort to respond to your points. And I'm still waiting for your response to my earlier point. Only to be met with "get used to it." Maybe you need to get used to being "laughed off" (though that's not at all what I was doing).
[when they are playing two entirely different characters.
We've been over this. The "characters" aren't what you're supposed to be thinking about with cameos. Cameos are about breaking the 4th wall.
#4882095
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the term "spiritual successor"?
Pun intended? :mrgreen:
Raystantz Italy wrote:

So it's neither a spiritual successor. It's not made by the same creators nor have the same style. Plus, by asserting that they have same themes and elements you reinforce the notion that this reboot is useless.

A spiritual successor doesn't expand upon the old movies like Roger (and me) wants.
Well they tried, the really did. But they failed in that respect. I suppose I'd say a spiritual successor would qualify as something that's got elements of the original but is not a remake or reboot and is something mostly new. Kind of like how Might No9 was touted as a spiritual successor to Mega Man. The new movie is more a reboot or remake. It carries the Ghostbusters name and contains elements that made up the original so would have to disagree on it being called a spiritual successor.
  • 1
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93

Someone on FB found it. NARDA ELECTROMAGNETIC RADI[…]

It appears that some time today someone who […]

Correct, it grants several in fact the Melody's […]

Are they just newspaper clippings or something? […]