- March 18th, 2016, 2:53 pm#4858092
Agreed, I think we both have spoken our minds about this matter. You see Paul as misogynist because of satirical article, I do not. Let's leave it at that.
Razorgeist liked this
For Ivan.
Razorgeist wrote:http://www.comicbookmovie.com/horror/pa ... nd-a112917Are you arguing that Paul Feig doesn't legitimately believe that women are funnier than men?To put it bluntly no.Because he's stated this on multiple occasions.Sources please and even if he believes this that dosent make him a misandrist.
gold333 wrote:Grit.I think it lacks class. It fails to treat the property with respect. They are going to make some money back just from merchandising and name recognition alone. If they were smart, they would schedule some reshoots and rework the movie so it does not turn out like the trailers. Granted the trailers are not the entire film, but they give you a sense of what is to come. I am not one of those people who are just content with seeing another film with Ghostbusters nostalgia; I feel like the fans that defend this movie just for the sake of, are possibly afraid that if this film fails then we won't see more in the cinema.
The trailer is missing the "grit", the mundane in GB that made the extraordinary so funny.
It's a shame it now looks like a CGI movie for young children.
Spangs wrote:A litle harsh? How about just downright demeaning and belittling. You have the feeling of being hit in the gut, not me. Though your reasoning is getting there. I get you want to lash out because of that, but allow us to have our own opinion instead of making us out to look like scared puppies who lap up every scrap we get. I actually like what I have seen so far. Is it perfect? No, but it's also very far from a slap in the face (pun intended).gold333 wrote:Grit.It's kind of like a wife who gets beat and just takes it because she has in her mind that she doesn't deserve better.... Maybe that is a little harsh... but they think that we are not getting the film that the fans need, but the film that we deserve...
The trailer is missing the "grit", the mundane in GB that made the extraordinary so funny.
It's a shame it now looks like a CGI movie for young children.
Spangs wrote:You are completely entitled to like what you have seen, just like there are people who have liked Pixels, last years Fantastic 4, Sharknado, Lake Placid, etc.This is what I mean by belittling. You jump right to the conclusion the movie will fit in 'poorly received' category.
Spangs wrote: My opinion is that they didn't do us justice and we are to accept a GB movie with a musical number in the middle of the movie. That may have worked in the movie, the mask, but in my opinion, that type of humor doesn't belong in this property.Music plays a very big role in the GB movies. The first one was jampacked with great numbers. The problem people seem to have is they compare the scene with the Mask, which plays it out super campy and cartoonish. It can also be played scary and more likely something between funny and scary. Funny does not have to mean cartoonish or over the top. In GB1, on paper Stay puft (a big, fat white sailor made out of marshmellow) could be considered over the top, but the way they set it up makes you believe it. I'll judge it when I see it, but I'm a a fan of musicals, so maybe I don't mind as much.
Spangs wrote: Now you start talking to me about the state of the art effects, I bring up Jar Jar Binks, that was cutting edge! The CGI in the prequels was the best for 1999; but the story and the corny jokes from Jar Jar made TPM the least liked of that franchise. Take Darth Maul out of the movie, and it would not have paved the way for Star Wars to be what it is today with all of the CG cartoons, Sequel trilogy, and even the new parks that are being built!Jar jar Bink's is a prime example of a comedy character done wrong. He is absolutely meant for kids. Some people might have liked him, I for one don't. The ghosts in this movie are a mixed bag of cgi, puppets enhanced with CGI and people in makeup enhanced with CGI, so I don't really see the comparison with a full CGI character.
Alphagaia wrote:This is what I mean by belittling. You jump right to the conclusion the movie will fit in 'poorly received' category.IF the movie is a longer version of the trailer, meaning we are going to be getting 120 min of this type of GB, then yes it will be poorly received.
Spangs wrote: My opinion is that they didn't do us justice and we are to accept a GB movie with a musical number in the middle of the movie. That may have worked in the movie, the mask, but in my opinion, that type of humor doesn't belong in this property.
Alphagaia wrote:Music plays a very big role in the GB movies. The first one was jampacked with great numbers. The problem people seem to have is they compare the scene with the Mask, which plays it out super campy and cartoonish. It can also be played scary and more likely something between funny and scary. Funny does not have to mean cartoonish or over the top. In GB1, stay puft could be considered over the top, but the way they set it up makes you believe it. I'll judge it when I see it, but I'm a a fan of musicals, so maybe I don't mind as much.Music IS a very big role in the movies, but musical numbers aren't...
Alphagaia wrote:Jar jar Bink's is a prime example of a comedy character done wrong. He is absolutely meant for kids. Some people might have liked him, I for one don't. The ghosts in this movie are puppets and people in makeup enhanced with CGI, so I don't really see the comparison with a full CGI character.I have no problem with Slimer, he did the least damage and merely seeing him in the trailer shows how they are banking on nostalgia. You stated that you liked the special effects in the film and the props. I would say that we have come so far from where we were in the 80's, so if they gave us subpar gadgets and puppets less people would like what they see.
Do you think Slimer will be like him?
Alphagaia wrote:We will have to wait and see.True, but I would only be optimistic about this film had the trailer not rubbed me the wrong way. Since I was not impressed, I am not concerned with waiting to see. I'll see it when I see it...and that's unfortunate because I really like this franchise.
Spangs wrote:That's a quite a big IF. I already stated I liked the trailer, though the humour could be better in some instances. It's hard to get right in a trailer, so I'll give that a pass. What rubbed you wrong so much you won't want to see it in the cinema?Alphagaia wrote:This is what I mean by belittling. You jump right to the conclusion the movie will fit in 'poorly received' category.IF the movie is a longer version of the trailer, meaning we are going to be getting 120 min of this type of GB, then yes it will be poorly received.
Spangs wrote: Music IS a very big role in the movies, but musical numbers aren't...My point is how you bring it. Magnolia for instance, has the whole cast bursting out in song. It's a unexpected moving, heartbreaking scene. Different vibe they are going for with this movie, but it's evidence of something that seems out of place in a movie that just works.
To break out into a Disney type of dance in this movie would only hurt it even more.
The marshmallow man was suppose to be off the wall, and it was, but had Ivan put a musical dance number in the first movie, I don't think it would have made the same impact on the audience.
Spangs wrote:I don't think it would have made the same impact on the audience.It's not meant to have the same sort of impact, the dance scene (in all likelihood) being a demonstration of the big bad's power, Stay Puft being the arrival of the big bad in it's destructor form.
Spangs wrote: I would love a good movie, this looks like they went straight for nostalgia and a good story took a backseat..I see nothing wrong with nostalgia. Story wise we have not seen Rowan or anything beyond a few bits of dialogue here and there plus a synopsis by a disgruntled editor and a positive fan. For me it's way to early to tell if the story took a backseat.
Alphagaia wrote:Seeing it at the cinema is the audiences ONLY way of influencing Sony and its remake/reboot strategy.Spangs wrote: IF the movie is a longer version of the trailer, meaning we are going to be getting 120 min of this type of GB, then yes it will be poorly received.What rubbed you wrong so much you won't want to see it in the cinema?
JayTigran wrote:By not seeing it in theaters you pretty well guarantee to killing the franchise.That is horrible logic. I'm not going to give them anything just because I don't want to see a bad rendition of a beloved franchise. Look at Jurassic Park 3, not a well received film; but we still got Jurassic World. As long as they have this Ghost Corps operation, we can expect new things from this franchise.
Like it or not, this is a jumping off point for GB as a whole. We're getting new products based on the original movie BECAUSE the new movie is coming out.
The DST Select toys, new Minimates, Vinyl statue things, all because of the new movie.
So by not helping THIS movie, we might as well put the knife in the back of the franchise ourselves.
Spangs wrote:That is horrible logic.Except it's what Skanker has also been saying with regard to the Michael Bay Transformers movies (and as someone who has worked both on licensed properties, and the Ghostbusters franchise, I'm willing to believe what he says), and that there have been new toys and cartoons spun off of classic series which may not've happened were it not from those films.
JayTigran wrote:My big issue isn't McCarthy but Wiig. Shes just just so damned awkward and constantly trying too hard to act. Everything I've seen her in is far from natural -especially in Paul and double for Bridesmaids which was (for me at least) full of forced moments and needless scenes like when the new friend and Wiigs character get into a one-up contest at the engagement party.rayp_Stantz wrote: Of course you are right.Oh trust me, McCarthy is on my list too....
But if have one personal problem with the actors: Melissa McCarthy.
I can count all actors i dont like with one hand...shes one of them. Just talking about my personal point of view.
I really hope one of the old guys show up in the movie. Lets see...
BUT, she CAN be funny when she dials it back from Bridesmaids or the Heat, and this one seems very dialed back for her...
Spangs wrote: SONY has had their damage control hats on in overtime trying to fix the backlash that happened after the trailer was released. Deleting negative comments, having their head of marketing take an extended leave, Feig himself coming out and trolling social media.What did Feig do on Twitter that counts as trolling?
Spangs wrote:I love Ghostbusters, but I can't blindly support this new film just because of the name they stuck on the movie reel.Gotta love how it's always "blindly" supporting it if someone suggests they're interested and/or looking forward to the reboot. Some of us are going into it with an idea or two of what we'll likely be encountering.
Spangs wrote:having their head of marketing take an extended leave, Feig himself coming out and trolling social media.- Still not actually proven to have been a direct result of the reboot, or it's trailer, mind you. I'll eat humble pie if and when Sony releases something stating that's why he's departing.
gold333 wrote:Then again, think logically,... that's why J.J. Abrams gets asked to reboot/resequel Star Wars and not Paul Feig.Differences of style aside, it's no wonder Abrams was chosen as Director of The Force Awakens over Feig, Feig didn't even have the Director's role in Ghostbusters until 2014 or so, a clear year after Abrams was given the keys to the Star Wars universe - so by then Feig hadn't have handled a reboot of a franchise yet.
Kingpin wrote:Ok, we'll say hopelessly optimistic ! lolSpangs wrote:I love Ghostbusters, but I can't blindly support this new film just because of the name they stuck on the movie reel.Gotta love how it's always "blindly" supporting it if someone suggests they're interested and/or looking forward to the reboot. Some of us are going into it with an idea or two of what we'll likely be encountering.
Egon's Pompadour wrote:What shakes my monkey tree is that, at any point during the production of this film, they could've heeded the criticism from fans and they chose not toIt's not really a matter of "any time", the worst of the criticism has probably come about from the trailer, and by that point in the production there's not much that can be substantially changed.
instead focusing on the minority of misogynist comments and labeling all criticism as such.They probably focussed on the comments that were (or they interpreted as) misogynistic because those were the voices that shouted loudest (and possibly most frequently), regardless of the fact they represented a minority.
The gender issue thus became a red herring which distracted from the terrible concept and rumors circulating for months.It would've been a red herring if there hadn't been some fans who had been genuinely misogynistic regarding the cast.
And, lastly, for now, the video that prompted me t[…]
At some point, probably just better off opening up[…]
Preview for #2 on DH's page. https://www.darkhors[…]