Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4896721
I stand by everything I said. I know why GB84 is a masterpiece. I'm not sure Plinkett does.

Like, when he's talking about adding a dramatic music pause to that scene with the girls and the tour guide. That's not at all something you would have seen in GB84. GB84, as fans always point out, is more grounded than that.
TobyMobias liked this
#4896723
JurorNo.2 wrote:I stand by everything I said. I know why GB84 is a masterpiece. I'm not sure Plinkett does.

Like, when he's talking about adding a dramatic music pause to that scene with the girls and the tour guide. That's not at all something you would have seen in GB84. GB84, as fans always point out, is more grounded than that.
Well you're flat out wrong about the angry thing. I can say that because I liked the video but I'm totally not angry.

Your point about the tour guide is True(not working in '84) but that wasn't his point, he wasn't saying it will be like GB 84, he's saying this is how the scene could've worked better. He mentioned that being a straight up Gb'84 clone would be boring. Not everything he said was in context of making it like GB'84. He was just comparing how to do it right and how do not to do it. Like the scene with the Dean. That's literally a scene I would expect in some lame Adam Sandler film(the whole middle finger bit)

The scene in the subway is a better example of how it could be like GB'84 because he cuts to an example. And he's right.
JurorNo.2, RichRyan1507 liked this
#4896725
RichardLess wrote:Your point about the tour guide is True(not working in '84) but that wasn't his point, he wasn't saying it will be like GB 84, he's saying this is how the scene could've worked better. He mentioned that being a straight up Gb'84 clone would be boring. Not everything he said was in context of making it like GB'84. He was just comparing how to do it right and how do not to do it.
Granted, that wasn't a comparison, fair enough. But this idea of "how to do is right" is flawed. Because, again, GB84 didn't follow a lot of the typical storytelling cliches, and it's amazing. Like I said, Plinkett's taste in movies is a tad too conventional.

This reminds me of when people complained that Ladyhawke's score was too weird and out of place...so they proceeded to put very bland, obvious orchestrations in its place. It may be more "appropriate" but it's far less imaginative.
That's literally a scene I would expect in some lame Adam Sandler film(the whole middle finger bit)
Having seen my share of Sandler movies, I think the comparison is off. It's something I'd expect to see in a Feig movie though. And hey, I personally didn't like it. But if we're not comparing it to GB84, then it's just Plinkett saying "I didn't like it." And analysis needs more.

As for the subway edit, hmm, I do appreciate the point he is trying to make there. Only thing is he compared a random scene in the middle of ATC to the tone of the big climax of GB84, so that's a bit off.

But! I will commend him for complimenting Leslie Jones. I'd like to send Milo that part of the review on a loop.
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on August 9th, 2017, 8:36 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Sav C, RichRyan1507 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4896729
That's a good point about Ghostbusters being more than just the simplistic set of screenwriting rules. Oftentimes I use it as a baseline; for instance when I used to read about character arcs in screenwriting books it always seemed like they were saying that the arc had to be noticeable, even obvious really, and I would always think "well, there weren't any arcs in Ghostbusters, so character arcs are not crucial." I don't think I realized Venkman's arc until you pointed it out to me, Juror, and then it finally sunk in how subtle the arc can be. It doesn't have to be some huge, spot it from a mile away change in character, just a subtle difference. I also typically feel whenever writing a screenplay that it needs an opening scene along the lines of Ghostbusters, that is almost like a short in itself; that the characters need to display their personality in the first scene we meet them; that the ending must wrap up quickly.

While all of those are good tips, it's probably not the best when I start to think of them as rules. The mind should be allowed to run free, and then the script should be tuned up once a draft has been laid down. It also applies to editing, they say to alternate shot lengths between short and long for each sequence, yet I've found that it's best to edit to the natural pace since it will likely balance out naturally. No need to force anything until everything is laid out first, and it's easy to see what needs improvement and what works fine. But anyway, it's probably best to approach it the Venkman way--they aren't so much rules as they are guidelines.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4896730
Sav C wrote:That's a good point about Ghostbusters being more than just the simplistic set of screenwriting rules. Oftentimes I use it as a baseline; for instance when I used to read about character arcs in screenwriting books it always seemed like they were saying that the arc had to be noticeable, even obvious really, and I would always think "well, there weren't any arcs in Ghostbusters, so character arcs are not crucial." I don't think I realized Venkman's arc until you pointed it out to me, Juror, and then it finally sunk in how subtle the arc can be. It doesn't have to be some huge, spot it from a mile away change in character, just a subtle difference. I also typically feel whenever writing a screenplay that it needs an opening scene along the lines of Ghostbusters, that is almost like a short in itself; that the characters need to display their personality in the first scene we meet them; that the ending must wrap up quickly.

While all of those are good tips, it's probably not the best when I start to think of them as rules. The mind should be allowed to run free, and then the script should be tuned up once a draft has been laid down. It also applies to editing, they say to alternate shot lengths between short and long for each sequence, yet I've found that it's best to edit to the natural pace since it will likely balance out naturally. No need to force anything until everything is laid out first, and it's easy to see what needs improvement and what works fine. But anyway, it's probably best to approach it the Venkman way--they aren't so much rules as they are guidelines.
You know it's funny, I was just watching a Star Trek: Voyager episode the other day where Torres becomes the inspiration for an alien's play. And at one point, the playwright is advised to avoid the usual writing "tricks" the audience has already seen so many times. That stories were about the emotion, not just twists, or mistaken identities, or reversals.

Also, I came across a very good essay once about Blues Brothers. Now that's a movie that follows no rules whatsoever! Consider, our two heroes have their big character arc right at the start of the story! After that, we're treated to 2 hours of what your Screenwriting professor would call falling action! A typical screenplay would have had Jake and Elwood get into a fight somewhere around the bar scene, separate, and then reconcile in time for the concert. But none of that happens. Our heroes are a unit, they don't exist apart. It's weird, but we feel the strength of their connection, and they never feel flat. We don't need some plot contrivance to "make" us care about their relationship. Their relationship IS the movie. The obstacles they do run into are pretty random (some of them of their own making!). This essay pointed that Aykroyd's background was in improv, where you don't have a lot of time to build character development, yet you still have to create characters and scenarios that live and make the audience believe, no matter how odd and random they may seem.

And it's the same with Ghostbusters. There is a bit more conflict between Peter and Ray, but again, no cliche break up or reunion is required for us to care. Peter is changed from his separation from Dana, this is true. But as you point out, Sav, you're not hit over the head with it.

Tying this back to ATC, I like that Erin and Abby sort of follow this tradition in that they aren't hating each other for half the movie. They fall back easily into their old roles and that's how we learn about their friendship and previous breakup.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By deadderek
#4896731
RichardLess wrote:
Also anyone who watched the video, what did you think of the edit Plinkett made of the subway scene?
I thought it was extremely well done. WAY better than what we actually got. The whole "STOP TALKING" thing had me in stitches.

I also loved how he compared it to Ghostbusters (Classic) just to show how effective some silence can be.
RichRyan1507 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4896732
JurorNo.2 wrote:You know it's funny, I was just watching a Star Trek: Voyager episode the other day where Torres becomes the inspiration for an alien's play. And at one point, the playwright is advised to avoid the usual writing "tricks" the audience has already seen so many times. That stories were about the emotion, not just twists, or mistaken identities, or reversals.

Also, I came across a very good essay once about Blues Brothers. Now that's a movie that follows no rules whatsoever! Consider, our two heroes have their big character arc right at the start of the story! After that, we're treated to 2 hours of what your Screenwriting professor would call falling action! A typical screenplay would have had Jake and Elwood get into a fight somewhere around the bar scene, separate, and then reconcile in time for the concert. But none of that happens. Our heroes are a unit, they don't exist apart. It's weird, but we feel the strength of their connection, and they never feel flat. We don't need some plot contrivance to "make" us care about their relationship. Their relationship IS the movie. The obstacles they do run into are pretty random (some of them of their own making!). This essay pointed that Aykroyd's background was in improv, where you don't have a lot of time to build character development, yet you still have to create characters and scenarios that live and make the audience believe, no matter how odd and random they may seem.

And it's the same with Ghostbusters. There is a bit more conflict between Peter and Ray, but again, no cliche break up or reunion is required for us to care. Peter is changed from his separation from Dana, this is true. But as you point out, Sav, you're not hit over the head with it.

Tying this back to ATC, I like that Erin and Abby sort of follow this tradition in that they aren't hating each other for half the movie. They fall back easily into their old roles and that's how we learn about their friendship and previous breakup.
Oh yeah? Cool. I was thinking the other day how awesome it is that the Star Trek fandom is so spread out. At my workplace there's even a poster on the cork board for a Star Trek fan club (that also accepts Star Wars cosplayers, to quote the poster "they aren't prejudiced"), which is almost surprising to me considering how small my town is. I'm not sure if we even have enough people to sustain a Ghostbusters franchise to be honest. All I do know is that when I went out in my Ghostbusters costumer Halloween it got a better response than any of my other costumes pretty much, so maybe there would be enough interest.

You know I still haven't seen Blues Brothers (I have seen them on SNL, though). It just got to Netflix this week so I'll try and check it out sooner rather than later.

Yes, it's nice the way it works out in ATC. They hit things off again pretty quickly once Erin realizes that they were on the right path believing in ghosts, if my memory serves me correctly. It almost reminds me of Ghostbusters II in that they've all gone their separate ways at the beginning of the movie, but then get together pretty quickly once they go to check our Dana's apartment. It's really Dana and Venkman who haven't actually spoken, but they all went their separate ways to some extent. From a character standpoint ATC is almost like a sequel, but in a story sense there isn't any Ghostbusting before the movie starts, unlike GBII. Still, maybe the question we should be asking is not whether or not ATC should get a sequel, but a prequel. :)
JurorNo.2 liked this
By ccv66
#4896735
I found Plinketts review more entertaining then the actual movie. Did like the idea of less is more, if everything s funny, nothings funny. Lack of love interest. Adjustment s of characters. He did make it seem like some small tweaks and editing would have drastically improved the movie.
RichRyan1507 liked this
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4896736
Sav C wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:You know it's funny, I was just watching a Star Trek: Voyager episode the other day where Torres becomes the inspiration for an alien's play. And at one point, the playwright is advised to avoid the usual writing "tricks" the audience has already seen so many times. That stories were about the emotion, not just twists, or mistaken identities, or reversals.

Also, I came across a very good essay once about Blues Brothers. Now that's a movie that follows no rules whatsoever! Consider, our two heroes have their big character arc right at the start of the story! After that, we're treated to 2 hours of what your Screenwriting professor would call falling action! A typical screenplay would have had Jake and Elwood get into a fight somewhere around the bar scene, separate, and then reconcile in time for the concert. But none of that happens. Our heroes are a unit, they don't exist apart. It's weird, but we feel the strength of their connection, and they never feel flat. We don't need some plot contrivance to "make" us care about their relationship. Their relationship IS the movie. The obstacles they do run into are pretty random (some of them of their own making!). This essay pointed that Aykroyd's background was in improv, where you don't have a lot of time to build character development, yet you still have to create characters and scenarios that live and make the audience believe, no matter how odd and random they may seem.

And it's the same with Ghostbusters. There is a bit more conflict between Peter and Ray, but again, no cliche break up or reunion is required for us to care. Peter is changed from his separation from Dana, this is true. But as you point out, Sav, you're not hit over the head with it.

Tying this back to ATC, I like that Erin and Abby sort of follow this tradition in that they aren't hating each other for half the movie. They fall back easily into their old roles and that's how we learn about their friendship and previous breakup.
Oh yeah? Cool. I was thinking the other day how awesome it is that the Star Trek fandom is so spread out. At my workplace there's even a poster on the cork board for a Star Trek fan club (that also accepts Star Wars cosplayers, to quote the poster "they aren't prejudiced"), which is almost surprising to me considering how small my town is. I'm not sure if we even have enough people to sustain a Ghostbusters franchise to be honest. All I do know is that when I went out in my Ghostbusters costumer Halloween it got a better response than any of my other costumes pretty much, so maybe there would be enough interest.

You know I still haven't seen Blues Brothers (I have seen them on SNL, though). It just got to Netflix this week so I'll try and check it out sooner rather than later.

Yes, it's nice the way it works out in ATC. They hit things off again pretty quickly once Erin realizes that they were on the right path believing in ghosts, if my memory serves me correctly. It almost reminds me of Ghostbusters II in that they've all gone their separate ways at the beginning of the movie, but then get together pretty quickly once they go to check our Dana's apartment. It's really Dana and Venkman who haven't actually spoken, but they all went their separate ways to some extent. From a character standpoint ATC is almost like a sequel, but in a story sense there isn't any Ghostbusting before the movie starts, unlike GBII. Still, maybe the question we should be asking is not whether or not ATC should get a sequel, but a prequel. :)
Blues Brothers is such a great comedy. It's sooo big and epic. It always bugs me that people never mention it in the pantheon of great car chase movies. The stunt work is incredible. I love that Dan Aykroyd started out in 1941, Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters. 3 of the most expensive comedies ever made at the time. And he co-wrote two of them lol. 1941 is a Steven Spielberg movie that has to be seen to be believed. It's just..quite something to behold. Some of the comedy doesn't work and it's one of the rare times you get to see a filmmaker parody is own work but holy crap does it swing for the fences.
Blues Brothers is just oozing with cool plus it's got charisma & confidence to spare. The less said about the sequel the better. Ugghhhh.

And Juror is totally correct. Blues Brothers 100% follows no rules. It's an R rated comedy/action/musical and it's completely it's own thing. I also consider it a masterpiece. Man Dan Aykroyd should try writing more.

But Wait, Sav. You saw The Blues Brothers on SNL? Like the original Blues Brothers? With Danny & John? When was this?
User avatar
By deadderek
#4896742
The Plinkett screaming/shouting voice is but I feel the "calmer" one is an extreme exaggeration of his natural speaking voice.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4896744
Kingpin wrote:Quick sidebar, does Plinkett put on that voice for his videos, or is that his natural speaking voice?
He does it for comedic effect. While he does insert some good points, keep in mind he also exaggerates points to make a joke (e.a. showing the Papa John advertisement as being in movie' and him crapping on Greeks & Geeks (he actually likes it.) This makes it a bit hard for some people not familiar with the movie or his character to see what is a joke and what is a sencere gripe.
First and foremost, this is made to entertain, while giving out some decent points.
deadderek, featofstrength, SpaceBallz and 1 others liked this
By Lee FW
#4896749
featofstrength wrote:
Lee FW wrote:Great...now I'll never be able to bring up Ghostbusters again without someone quoting or using RLM as an argument. I think it's his cult of fanboys that annoy me more than the reviews/analysis themselves. He might have some valid points but it's wrapped up in the most infuriating of characters.
You aren't saying anything hordes of prequel lovers haven't already said.
And Plinkett might not be saying anything that hasn't already been said...just more compiled, concise, and intended to be entertaining.
I got nothing against him doing the analysis or people disliking the movie but that was my point, it's hard to argue the prequels are great movies but there's elements I enjoy and appreciate, unfortunately anytime I've mentioned them I get the same response of "but RLM said...." or "You need to watch RLM"
It's the fact a lot of people use his word as gospel that bugs me, like form your own argument don't parrot someone elses, I don't need to hear your sources as some form of validation. It's one reason I'm loath to bring up reviews good or bad to back up an opinion.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4896756
RichardLess wrote:
Sav C wrote: Oh yeah? Cool. I was thinking the other day how awesome it is that the Star Trek fandom is so spread out. At my workplace there's even a poster on the cork board for a Star Trek fan club (that also accepts Star Wars cosplayers, to quote the poster "they aren't prejudiced"), which is almost surprising to me considering how small my town is. I'm not sure if we even have enough people to sustain a Ghostbusters franchise to be honest. All I do know is that when I went out in my Ghostbusters costumer Halloween it got a better response than any of my other costumes pretty much, so maybe there would be enough interest.

You know I still haven't seen Blues Brothers (I have seen them on SNL, though). It just got to Netflix this week so I'll try and check it out sooner rather than later.

Yes, it's nice the way it works out in ATC. They hit things off again pretty quickly once Erin realizes that they were on the right path believing in ghosts, if my memory serves me correctly. It almost reminds me of Ghostbusters II in that they've all gone their separate ways at the beginning of the movie, but then get together pretty quickly once they go to check our Dana's apartment. It's really Dana and Venkman who haven't actually spoken, but they all went their separate ways to some extent. From a character standpoint ATC is almost like a sequel, but in a story sense there isn't any Ghostbusting before the movie starts, unlike GBII. Still, maybe the question we should be asking is not whether or not ATC should get a sequel, but a prequel. :)
Blues Brothers is such a great comedy. It's sooo big and epic. It always bugs me that people never mention it in the pantheon of great car chase movies. The stunt work is incredible. I love that Dan Aykroyd started out in 1941, Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters. 3 of the most expensive comedies ever made at the time. And he co-wrote two of them lol. 1941 is a Steven Spielberg movie that has to be seen to be believed. It's just..quite something to behold. Some of the comedy doesn't work and it's one of the rare times you get to see a filmmaker parody is own work but holy crap does it swing for the fences.
Blues Brothers is just oozing with cool plus it's got charisma & confidence to spare. The less said about the sequel the better. Ugghhhh.

And Juror is totally correct. Blues Brothers 100% follows no rules. It's an R rated comedy/action/musical and it's completely it's own thing. I also consider it a masterpiece. Man Dan Aykroyd should try writing more.

But Wait, Sav. You saw The Blues Brothers on SNL? Like the original Blues Brothers? With Danny & John? When was this?
I've really been into cars the past couple of weeks (just watched American Graffiti); now I really want to check it out! I'll also put 1941 in the wish list.

Yeah Richardless, I believe they started out as an SNL skit, although maybe it followed the movie. It's in the Dan Aykroyd SNL highlight reel, and some of their other best ofs. I see all this stuff on home video, so pretty recently (within the last five years) was when I saw it. They were also on the Capitol Fourth special (and now I think I have ESP because I was literally whistling Glory Glory Hallelujah this morning, almost as if I knew I would mention the capitol fourth special :shock: ). I think they were on SNL regularly just like the Coneheads.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4896764
Kingpin wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:He does it for comedic effect.
That sounds exhausting. (And personally, it sounds awful - the running time and his vocal delivery have turned me off of viewing the video completely)

His real name is Mike Stoklassa. It's suppose to sound awful. The joke is a serial killer that sounds like that is giving interesting and thought provoking analysis on film. I couldn't get through his first Phantom Menace review for a loooong time. Finally I strapped myself in and laughed like an idiot.

And yes. Voice acting is quite exhausting.
#4896765
Sav C wrote:
RichardLess wrote:
Blues Brothers is such a great comedy. It's sooo big and epic. It always bugs me that people never mention it in the pantheon of great car chase movies. The stunt work is incredible. I love that Dan Aykroyd started out in 1941, Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters. 3 of the most expensive comedies ever made at the time. And he co-wrote two of them lol. 1941 is a Steven Spielberg movie that has to be seen to be believed. It's just..quite something to behold. Some of the comedy doesn't work and it's one of the rare times you get to see a filmmaker parody is own work but holy crap does it swing for the fences.
Blues Brothers is just oozing with cool plus it's got charisma & confidence to spare. The less said about the sequel the better. Ugghhhh.

And Juror is totally correct. Blues Brothers 100% follows no rules. It's an R rated comedy/action/musical and it's completely it's own thing. I also consider it a masterpiece. Man Dan Aykroyd should try writing more.

But Wait, Sav. You saw The Blues Brothers on SNL? Like the original Blues Brothers? With Danny & John? When was this?
I've really been into cars the past couple of weeks (just watched American Graffiti); now I really want to check it out! I'll also put 1941 in the wish list.

Yeah Richardless, I believe they started out as an SNL skit, although maybe it followed the movie. It's in the Dan Aykroyd SNL highlight reel, and some of their other best ofs. I see all this stuff on home video, so pretty recently (within the last five years) was when I saw it. They were also on the Capitol Fourth special (and now I think I have ESP because I was literally whistling Glory Glory Hallelujah this morning, almost as if I knew I would mention the capitol fourth special :shock: ). I think they were on SNL regularly just like the Coneheads.
They did indeed debut on SNL. Kind of. The wore bumble bee suits for the first appearance(at the insistence of Lorne Michaels) and played blues tunes. After that they did the movie and came back on SNL as Blues Brothers proper, sans Bumble Bee costume.
JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896766
Kingpin wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:He does it for comedic effect.
That sounds exhausting. (And personally, it sounds awful - the running time and his vocal delivery have turned me off of viewing the video completely)
It won't make a lot of sense unless you start with his prequel reviews, that's where he really set up the character. It's not for everyone of course.
#4896768
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Kingpin wrote:
That sounds exhausting. (And personally, it sounds awful - the running time and his vocal delivery have turned me off of viewing the video completely)
It won't make a lot of sense unless you start with his prequel reviews, that's where he really set up the character. It's not for everyone of course.
100% this.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896775
Speaking of SNL, I just got back from the dress rehearsal for tonight's Weekend Update special. So if the show's funny, you're welcome! ;)
Sav C liked this
#4896778
Kingpin wrote:
And personally, it sounds awful - the running time and..
Dude...c'mon...the GBoot was 2hrs and 14 minutes long and filled with annoying characters.
You can do better than that.


Anyway, Red Letter Media is so much more than Plinkett now.
If you can't laugh at the "Wheel of the Worst," you have no soul.
Watching some of those "films"... those guys are really suffering for their art.
Still... I'd rather watch a Shoji Tabuchi tape from good ole Branson, MO than watch GBoot again.
deadderek, seekandannoy, SpaceBallz and 2 others liked this
#4896781
JurorNo.2 wrote:Speaking of SNL, I just got back from the dress rehearsal for tonight's Weekend Update special. So if the show's funny, you're welcome! ;)
Do you live in NY? I don't know why but for some reason I was under the impression you lived in the UK.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4896789
RichardLess wrote:They did indeed debut on SNL. Kind of. The wore bumble bee suits for the first appearance(at the insistence of Lorne Michaels) and played blues tunes. After that they did the movie and came back on SNL as Blues Brothers proper, sans Bumble Bee costume.
Oh yeah, I've seen that bumble bee sketch too. I didn't realize that that was the first incarnation of the Blues Brothers, though. Richardless, you mentioned 1941; that was with Jim Belushi, right? Have you ever watched Red Heat with Jim and Arnold Schwarzenegger? It's one of the few movies I've seen Jim in, and it's rather funny.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Speaking of SNL, I just got back from the dress rehearsal for tonight's Weekend Update special. So if the show's funny, you're welcome! ;)
That musta been cool! I'm looking forward to it. It's just three specials, right? Once SNL resumes they'll merge again is my understanding.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4896790
Sav C wrote:
RichardLess wrote:They did indeed debut on SNL. Kind of. The wore bumble bee suits for the first appearance(at the insistence of Lorne Michaels) and played blues tunes. After that they did the movie and came back on SNL as Blues Brothers proper, sans Bumble Bee costume.
Oh yeah, I've seen that bumble bee sketch too. I didn't realize that that was the first incarnation of the Blues Brothers, though. Richardless, you mentioned 1941; that was with Jim Belushi, right? Have you ever watched Red Heat with Jim and Arnold Schwarzenegger? It's one of the few movies I've seen Jim in, and it's rather funny.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Speaking of SNL, I just got back from the dress rehearsal for tonight's Weekend Update special. So if the show's funny, you're welcome! ;)
That musta been cool! I'm looking forward to it. It's just three specials, right? Once SNL resumes they'll merge again is my understanding.
Oh yeah I saw red Heat but Jim Belushi is Johns older and less talented brother. Yep John is in 1941. So is a young John Candy. John Belushi died tragically in 1983 of a heroin/cocaine or "speedball" overdose. John got his major movie breakthrough in Animal House, a very famous movie that was written by Harold Ramis and produced by Ivan Reitman. John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd were best friends and Dan tried very hard, along with John's wife, to keep him away from drugs since he had such a major problem. The thing is when you are famous and the life of the party, everyone wants to drink and do drugs with you. Everyone wanted a "I got high with John Belushi" story. It was hard for him to stay clean and Dan couldn't be there 24/7. Dan still to this day partly blames himself for what happened to John even though everyone says Dan did all that he could do. Sad story. The role of Venkman was originally written with John Belushi in mind. They say that Slimer is based off John's role in "Animal House", a character called Bluto.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4896792
featofstrength wrote:Dude...c'mon...the GBoot was 2hrs and 14 minutes long and filled with annoying characters.
You can do better than that.
And the reboot offered more than a guy putting on a voice and splicing together clips to get a hook in. Generally I'm not all that interested in what reviewers/critics have to say either because I often find myself not agreeing with what they end up saying, or they come off as extremely pretentious (that isn't the case with all of them, but more than a few). When I do pay attention to a review, I prefer it to be succinct and to the point, and I don't believe you need to spend anywhere near an hour on any film to highlight it's strengths and weaknesses... I'm not in school or university anymore, I don't have to sit through a hour and a half lecture if there's something more enjoyable I'd rather do with that time.
featofstrength wrote:I'd rather watch a Shoji Tabuchi tape from good ole Branson, MO than watch GBoot again.
We got it, we got it a year ago.
Alphagaia, Sav C, TobyMobias liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4896793
I agree, guys. It's fine if you like the review, but don't just use the thread to rehash your year old stance against the movie.
The tone was going quite well so far, featofstrength, no need for that.
Sav C liked this

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]

I read Back in Town #1. Spoilers : Hate to b[…]

I'd really like to see the new t-shirt unlocks tra[…]