Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4865308
Creativeguy wrote:Why is is such a big deal when it comes to this movie that someone might go "I saw the trailer, I don't want to see this." when it happens CONSTANTLY with any other movie anywhere. The guy doesn't feel it's worth his time, he's not interested in it, and he's not going to review it. People are so butt hurt over him saying that it's ridiculous. I'm right there with him. I have no interest in seeing this based upon what I've seen in the trailers. No thank you.
Agreed. Did everyone run out and see Fantastic Four even though it looked like garbage? No, because people were able to see by the trailer that it was going to suck. It completely missed the tone of the Fantastic Four and nobody wanted to waste their time and money. I've never looked at any other movie crappy movie trailer and thought "wow that looks terrible, but I'll spend $10 to see it, just to give it a shot." The purpose of the trailer is to get people to want to see the movie. To show enough good stuff about the movie to get people excited. The new trailer as well as the reboot/remake status of his movie didn't land well on a lot of people.
featofstrength liked this
#4865309
Creativeguy wrote:Why is is such a big deal when it comes to this movie that someone might go "I saw the trailer, I don't want to see this." when it happens CONSTANTLY with any other movie anywhere.
But what doesn't constantly happen is people making a video announcing they don't want to see a movie. And then kinda trying to sneak in a movie review by reviewing the trailer. Never mind trailers are misleading all the time and aren't even made by the director. Critics can't just walk into the office and announce, "I don't like that trailer, so I'll just review that in my column and screw the movie!" That is not professional.
GBfan77 liked this
#4865343
Alphagaia wrote:James Rolfe is not just anybody though. The guy is an avid Ghostbusterfan and has a bit of a following.
Well, heh, no offence meant to him, but he is just anybody. The Ghostbusters are somebodies because they save people. Not because they publish popular zines about Terminator and Police Academy in their spare time.
#4865348
I can understand his opinion is just as valid as anybody else, but one can value his opinion on his previous work, in depth reviews and the movie he made. So, technically, he does know what he is talking about.
I do agree his nostalgia clouds his judgement and accepts no enjoyment in change.While I find that a great big shame, it's his honest opinion and because he is expected to review or at least see the movie, he gives a very clear video response to his fans explaining why he is not going to do either. Again, a shame, but completely understandable.
#4865350
And he would know what he was talking about even more if he watched a movie made by a director, instead of a trailer made by a marketing team. :)

And I might respect his little boycott more if he always made a point of avoiding reviewing movies with controversial reputations. But that is not the case.
#4865380
For him, GB is very personal and he has a very strict set of rules on how a good sequel would work for him.Because this movie is so close to his heart, anything that is not following the plotline he described in the video is not going to cut it.

I love the old movies and show probably just as much as him and all of us here, but my core set of rules are much more open to interpretation as I don't mind spin offs or what iffs.

As this reboot wants to go with different characters he already knows and loves, restarts the story to keep ghosts more of a mystery and puts way more focus on the tech evolution he is just not interested any more. Fair enough. His loss, or gain if it happens to be bad.
#4865383
The guy made some good arguments, that I can support!

But I'm a bit torn apart when it comes to this movie. On the one side I hate the reboot idea and the cheap "2003 Haunted Mansion" like looking ghosts, but on the other side I like most of the new characters and the thoughts that have gone into the new tech! I think it could still become a good movie if the story is good and represented in the right way. It won't be great because of the things I already don't like about it, but can still be kind of good!

In one way I want to see it to see if it's at least good, but on the other hand I don't know if it'll be good enough to pay money to see it or if I should just wait for it to be on tv or stream it online in some way!
#4865387
A lot of critics have personal biases. They still show up to work everyday and do a job. But this guy refuses to do a job...because he likes his own fanfiction better? His attitude bugs me because it perpetuates the notion that Internet journalism is not to be taken seriously.

I don't have much sympathy for this guy, but Alphagaia, I do appreciate your efforts to be fair and open on his behalf. :)
Kingpin liked this
#4865419
Raystantz Italy wrote:I'll read the detailed synopsis on Wikipedia. If some multiverse links happens to be in the movie linking everything in a big ecpanded Gb Universe I'll go see it.
Wikipedia film synopses aren't always that detailed, and I thought you were gonna watch your sister's download of the film?
#4865429
The time portals like I mentioned earlier could bring in the original 1975 Ghostbusters. They could also still have the 1984 Ghostbusters being brought into the movie this way. Having both teams side by side with Mc Carthy would have been a good way to pass torch. Now we haven't seen any 1975 merch yet so my theory more then likely doesn't stand a chance in hell.
#4865457
Kingpin wrote:Can you guys help me understand what it is about Filmation's film/cartoon that's so appealing? I just don't get it.
What's not to understand? They had a humanoid gorilla on their team and we have the most powerful CGI/motion capture technology to date to make it happen! Who you gonna call? Andy Serkis!
#4865458
The cartoon was fun. The time tunnel, portal, trip whatever you want to name the scene is clearly showing nods to the 70's. The GB original series premiered in the 70's. The filmation cartoon involved time travel. Just connecting the dots. After all Sony did buy the Ghostbusters license from filmation.
#4865469
weepel wrote:Agreed. Did everyone run out and see Fantastic Four even though it looked like garbage? No, because people were able to see by the trailer that it was going to suck. It completely missed the tone of the Fantastic Four and nobody wanted to waste their time and money.
Oh come on, The Ghostbusters remake doesn't look anywhere near as bad as the Fantastic 4 remake.
Kingpin liked this
#4865472
I was actually asking why the Filmation cartoon was so popular.
timeware wrote:The filmation cartoon involved time travel. Just connecting the dots.
You guys must be seeing something I'm missing then, because despite it being Sony, there being a time warp, and it warping to the 1970s, that's not something that suggests beyond circumstantial guessing that there'll be anything to do with Filmation's Ghostbusters.

And why would Sony go to any effort to include the Filmation crew? They're probably more well-remembered for being "that knock-off of Ghostbusters" than anything else. To me, it looks like a poor man's Scooby Doo.

It's a crossover that wouldn't work either with the 1984 Ghostbusters' world, or the 2016 team's, especially as a sorta-talking Gorilla would just be too much of a stretch to believe.

As it stands, I'm still doubtful that we'll see the 1984 team at all, but should they appear, the 1984 team reappearing is still leaps and bounds more plausible than Filmation's kooky crew making an appearance.
lozbloke liked this
#4865477
If the 1984 GB's aren't going to be included why would they make reference to the 70's instead of the 80's? It doesn't make sense unless they chose younger actors to play Egon, Ray, and Peter during their college days. If they would be included in the time rift at all.

Remember Winston wasn't hired until they got their business up and running. If the girls are considered the original GB's of their universe wouldn't it be more believable to have them meet the original Ghostbuster team during that time period? I doubt in the mid seventies that the guys had any of their busting equipment on the drawing board yet. It takes about 8 years to get a doctorate, they would have been in college around that time period.

As for the believability of a talking gorilla how many planet of the apes films have we had so far? I think Ernie would be a little more pissed off with Sony if they gave him a crappy cameo and chose to put in younger versions of the GB's instead. He'd have been more vocal I would expect. None of this is probably going to happen but like I said, it's a possibility.
#4865479
timeware wrote:If the 1984 GB's aren't going to be included why would they make reference to the 70's instead of the 80's?
Because, if part of a leaked synopsis (and the trailer) is anything to go by, it looks like Rowan is calling up ghosts from different time periods in the city's history. While it may not happen, it is potentially possible that Times Square could shift further backward to the 1960s, 1950s, and so on (or would, if the Ghostbusters didn't throw a spanner into his plan and stop it).

The 1970s might have a particular significance to Rowan. Neil Casey (who plays Rowan) was born in 1979, so there might be a significance there that we aren't aware of yet.
timeware wrote:As for the believability of a talking gorilla how many planet of the apes films have we had so far?
Those worked in the context of those movies. The Ghostbusters universes (1984 and 2016) have zero establishing ground work for a talking gorilla. You can read into the time warp to the 1970s as much as you want (although I think how it's being described is a bit inaccurate, the 2016 Ghostbusters don't suddenly step into 1970s New York, a ghost of 1970s New York is conjured up in 2016 Times Square) that it's somehow going to set up a crossover with something Columbia/Sony didn't own, and wouldn't have any serious consideration to reference.

There's enough confusion about where the classic Ghostbusters are with regards to this movie, why throw more gas on the fire by putting in an obscure, team of paranormal investigators who have a very similar name?

You can quote me on this: we will not be seeing Filmation's Ghostbusters making any form of appearance.
#4865503
Kingpin wrote:Can you guys help me understand what it is about Filmation's film/cartoon that's so appealing? I just don't get it.
You may not be able to see it, or figure out why it is, but some things are just great even when they don't seem it.
Ghost Busters 1975 is not one of those cases. :)

To sum up, I have no clue where the appeal comes from.
Kingpin liked this
Uniform Tips

It does rain frequently here in London, but not to[…]

Hasbro Ghostbusters

It could have been more accurate (barrel and[…]

The yellow parts are raw 3D prints, unsanded and u[…]

Sorry, I hadn't seen any of these replies. Either […]