Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4853477
DarkSpectre wrote:One of my guys, who's a huge video game guy and a Sandler fan said it was terrible. He said there was only one funny part. So really to each their own. The original short on youtube was so brilliant, it's sad that Adam Sandler had to ruin it.
Yes, very much so, to each their own, it's not for everybody... it's a stupid mindless movie, but I still had fun with it... your mileage may vary, just don't expect it to be amazing...
#4853483
pyhasanon wrote:
DarkSpectre wrote:One of my guys, who's a huge video game guy and a Sandler fan said it was terrible. He said there was only one funny part. So really to each their own. The original short on youtube was so brilliant, it's sad that Adam Sandler had to ruin it.
Yes, very much so, to each their own, it's not for everybody... it's a stupid mindless movie, but I still had fun with it... your mileage may vary, just don't expect it to be amazing...
You see, I'm going to confess something. Please don't judge, but... I have seen F4NTASTIC. I went with another big comic fan of mine when it came out. There were other people in the theater. I'm not the only one. Here's the thing. It wasn't really good, but it was far from terrible. It was two films at odds with itself. Others have highlighted how different the film feels after they skip ahead a year or so (can't remember how many). The first part wasn't bad. The second was rushed and never fleshed out Doom enough for you to care about the big showdown. Both of us left the theater thinking, "I don't know what all the fuss was about." Like I said, it wasn't spectacular (coming from someone who's not a fan of the Fantastic 4 comics), but it felt far from the EPIC FAILZ that many said it was.

Sometimes being 'meh' is worse than being super terrible to the point of awesome. I think Genesys fell into the same boat. For some I think the new Reboot will suffer a similar fate as the aforementioned films and for a reason the new GB has no control over. They'll judge it before they see it and declare it a clusterf&%#k. For a film like Pixels and maybe even F4NTASTIC, the same is true. They might not be smart films or even good films, but all merit they might have is ignored because people were predetermined to hate its very essence.

Just a few thoughts of mine as I get ready to check out Pixels. $1 at a Redbox isn't much to waste on a film that could be dumb. Maybe I'll get a few chuckles out of it. At the very least I hope some vehemently opposed to the new Ghostbusters will at least sacrifice that same $1 when it arrives on home video later this year.
#4853485
jango, that meh feeling is all I get from everything about this film. I've stated earlier in this thread that I flip flop on the issue saying I should give it a chance but everytime something new appears for it, I'm right back to that "meh" feeling. I hate feeling like that. I've devoted a lot of time to this hobby and this is the first new film in 30 years and all I can muster is "meh" that really bothers me.
#4853487
Last page there was some new info on a ghost and some plot points and raystanzitaly put that right in the open. Now this is quite minor, and we have spoken about some plot points that were in the leak, but as we are getting closer to the release, new plot points popping up will happen more often and these are way more likely to really happen in the film. So, how are we with spoilers here? Is there already a ruling in place?
Last edited by Alphagaia on February 5th, 2016, 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
#4853489
The part about F4NTASTIC that upset me the most was that I could see a better movie under the final cut. Especially since I know Trank was supposed to make Chronicle 2 but was then told to make F4NTASTIC instead. Honestly, I think they used parts of his Chronicle 2 script in the movie since it has some very similar elements.

I enjoyed Pixels. I like Adam Sandler movies (especially the older ones) and I love visual effects. The visual effects were nothing short of ground breaking. They achieved some amazing results in that.
The budget for Pixels was 88 million. It made $244,126,300 world wide. That's far from a failure aside from the critical reception. That's pretty much exactly 3x as much as the budget which is the general metric for distinguishing a failure from a success.
#4853511
Ah, excellent! Good to see others giving it a chance and enjoying it! I absolutely loved the Centipede and Pacman battles!
Alphagaia, Kingpin, timeware liked this
#4853523
I also enjoyed Pixels. I went into it not expecting much, at most a popcorn flick that I could switch my brain off for a bit, and ended up enjoying it, especially the Ghostbusters vibe to it.

The LEGO set, despite the minor spoilers, actually looks pretty awesome. That's two quite distinctive looking Ectomobiles effectively captured in LEGO form.
#4853531
Ugh... that whole article was seriously uncalled for... geez...
#4853539
timeware wrote:Why cant I look at something GB 2016 related without these feminist bloggers coming out of the wood work? Seriously, enough already!

http://www.avclub.com/article/heres-new ... ego-231802
Male hatred, male hatred everywhere.

When will this embarrassing misandry be seen for what it is?

Image

So much for hoping the Kevin character wasn't cast as the bumbling idiot.

That image tells me he is a cross between Janine and Louis Tully.

Relegate the guy visually representing classic masculinity into a foolish idiot. Because we are all feminists and we all hate men. Way to go Feig.


Every new image I see I agree more and more with DarkSpectre. Sigh..

:love:
#4853540
Regarding the Lego set...
This Post Contains Spoilers
And:

How and why does this topic keep veering towards Pixels and Star Trek?
#4853543
EJLambert wrote:Regarding the Lego set...
This Post Contains Spoilers
And:

How and why does this topic keep veering towards Pixels and Star Trek?
Because when it comes to GB 16 there's not a whole lot to talk about. Just speculation and rage hating on every minute detail. Even a Kevin minifigure. Release a trailer, Sony!
#4853548
EJLambert wrote:How and why does this topic keep veering towards Pixels and Star Trek?
Star Trek, not sure why, but Pixels because it's a Sony movie that has a very GB-like vibe to it that critics panned as a failure, but quite a few moviegoers actually enjoyed and think it doesn't deserve the bad rep that it's getting... it's brought up because it's being used as a comparison for a movie that's getting a lot of negative flak, but is still an enjoyable movie, despite it being thought of as a failure...
#4853565
And Star Trek is referenced because that's a reboot movie.
gold333 wrote:So much for hoping the Kevin character wasn't cast as the bumbling idiot.
Apart from the fact the suit is home made, there isn't a convincing argument yet that Kevin is going to be a bumbling idiot... not until we see the trailer, at any rate.
EJLambert wrote:Regarding the Lego set...
This Post Contains Spoilers
This Post Contains Spoilers
#4853583
Kingpin wrote:And Star Trek is referenced because that's a reboot movie.
...but it's a reboot movie that sticks to the same universe, just a kind of alternate reality... the characters are the same, and the existence and acknowledgement of the previous movies was evidenced in first of the newer movies... not similar to GB16 at all... the only way it can be compared is if they do decide to include the crossing of multiple GB universes in the end, ala the IDW series, but we have no proof whatsoever that they are going to do it...
DarkSpectre liked this
#4853585
Alphagaia wrote:
timeware wrote:It certainly seems these feminist bloggers are possessed by...something.
Yeah, talk about sour. To be fair though, both sides have shown to posture some extreme behavior.
True. It just seems to me these bloggers just want to continue being misandrists for the sole purpose of out misandrying the other. (if misandrying is a word. ) I think the male sexists have actually been quiet for a while now. These bloggers are just trying to stir things up again.

I get that the female GB's are a victory for the feminist crowd. They can celebrate in a less hateful kind of way.
#4853586
Kingpin wrote:Apart from the fact the suit is home made, there isn't a convincing argument yet that Kevin is going to be a bumbling idiot... not until we see the trailer, at any rate.
Exactly. I don't think that he's going to be a bumbling fool. He's probably going to be slightly clueless and naive, but well-meaning and earnest; most likely a hipster guy looking for a normal job, and little does he know that he's thrown his lot in with a group of eccentric women and will ultimately play a minor part in saving the world.
Kingpin liked this
#4853587
pyhasanon wrote:
Kingpin wrote:And Star Trek is referenced because that's a reboot movie.
...but it's a reboot movie that sticks to the same universe, just a kind of alternate reality... the characters are the same, and the existence and acknowledgement of the previous movies was evidenced in first of the newer movies... not similar to GB16 at all... the only way it can be compared is if they do decide to include the crossing of multiple GB universes in the end, ala the IDW series, but we have no proof whatsoever that they are going to do it...
I've pointed this out a few times myself Phil when questioning why it had to be a hard reboot. Trek is a good example of rebooting a universe with the same characters and settings and forging a new path. Bond did this as well. The results may be mixed to some but the Trek and Bond films have made some great box office and warranted sequels to continue their respective existences. I've said it before, I don't have any issue with the 4 OGB's being recast. If you could nail the casting you could move forward in the original timeline.
#4853590
I said it before, but unless there is some kind of copyright on the original team they needed Bills permission for, it never was a problem of finding a way to continue the canon. They wanted to preserve it should they get the original team back for a new flick. While this clearly was not happening for a lot of reasons, they let Feig do his own thing, as far away as possible (other names, new world, ghosts are unknown and capturing them is something they have to figure out) for a canon movie so the originals where kept safe and still had a safe way to continue.

During preproduction, another script was dropped that could get greenlighted. It's cannon, and that might be just what you wanted, Dark Spectre.
#4853591
Alphagaia wrote:I said it before, but unless there is some kind of copyright on the original team they needed Bills permission for, it never was a problem of finding a way to continue the canon. They wanted to preserve it should they get the original team back for a new flick. While this clearly was not happening for a lot of reasons, they let Feig do his own thing, as far away as possible (other names, new world, ghosts are unknown and capturing them is something they have to figure out) for a canon movie so the originals where kept safe and still had a safe way to continue.

During preproduction, another script was dropped that could get greenlighted. It's cannon, and that might be just what you wanted, Dark Spectre.
I ghink a part we gloss over when we talk rebooting the characters (Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston) is that I think there are a lot of rights issues. Murray holding out hurt our direct sequel and traditional reboot hopes. For whatever reason he liked the idea of GB 16 better and got on board.

If you're referring to the script by the Iron Man 3 writer, most of what we know indicates that it is in the reboot universe, but could have a unique way to tie it to the originals if the higher ups wanted to use it. Not quite the same as cannon with the originals.
  • 1
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 93

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[…]