- July 29th, 2016, 1:00 pm#4874483
If presidential politics were more like this we'd have a lot less old politician's running the country!
timeware wrote:If presidential politics were more like this we'd have a lot less old politician's running the country!This legislation is to the death.
Sav C wrote:Just so you know I'm dislking your comment not because I'm blaming you but because of the bad news you quoted. The sequel should have at least got nominated for visuals.pferreira1983 wrote:Did The Abyss win?Just checked Wikipedia, and yeah it did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_A ... ects#1980s Ghostbusters II didn't even get nominated
pferreira1983 wrote:Just so you know I'm dislking your comment not because I'm blaming you but because of the bad news you quoted. The sequel should have at least got nominated for visuals.If I could I would dislike my own comment too.
Alphagaia wrote:I never got why the GB need to 'train' people. It's point and shoot. If Peter and Winston can do it (and he gets hired on the spot) wasn't the point of GB anyone can be a GB?Yes it was. This is one of the reasons why a lot of people wanted a mixed team, myself included. This is an ideal that the fem bloggers will never understand less likely acknowledge, even though you have mixed teams in the comics and Extreme Ghostbusters.
Alphagaia wrote:I never got why the GB need to 'train' people. It's point and shoot. If Peter and Winston can do it (and he gets hired on the spot) wasn't the point of GB anyone can be a GB?It would be a nice way of showing the transfer from the old to the new. It would make a good story.
Sav C wrote: If I could I would dislike my own comment too.Yeah, no worries.
pferreira1983 wrote:A good story that still would have been banned in China.Alphagaia wrote:I never got why the GB need to 'train' people. It's point and shoot. If Peter and Winston can do it (and he gets hired on the spot) wasn't the point of GB anyone can be a GB?It would be a nice way of showing the transfer from the old to the new. It would make a good story.
Zharthaddeus wrote:GBs is still showing in my area.Taking my wife to see Suicide Squad on Thursday. I'm a huge DC fan, have been since I was 9.
Five different times for viewing at one theatre
"Suicide Squad" has taken over six screens.
Roger Rabbit wrote:The movie has come and gone at my local theater and I didn't see it. I am usually against remakes cause I want the old movies continued and expanded upon, not ignored. I can make exceptions when all of the main cast members are dead or if the ending was so conclusive there is no where to go but start over.Well good news, the originals were anything but ignored.
JurorNo.2 wrote:The events of the previous films seemingly were, making a bunch of references to them is not the same as following the continuity.Roger Rabbit wrote:The movie has come and gone at my local theater and I didn't see it. I am usually against remakes cause I want the old movies continued and expanded upon, not ignored. I can make exceptions when all of the main cast members are dead or if the ending was so conclusive there is no where to go but start over.Well good news, the originals were anything but ignored.
Roger Rabbit wrote:Have you ever heard of the term "spiritual successor"?JurorNo.2 wrote:The events of the previous films seemingly were, making a bunch of references to them is not the same as following the continuity.
Well good news, the originals were anything but ignored.
"A Spiritual Successor is a type of sequel that is not part of the same world or story as its predecessor, but is nonetheless considered to be a successor because it's made by the same creators; shares common themes, styles, or elements; or, most likely, both. In other words, it's a sequel "in spirit"." http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lSuccessor
Roger Rabbit wrote:JurorNo.2 wrote:The events of the previous films seemingly were, making a bunch of references to them is not the same as following the continuity.
Well good news, the originals were anything but ignored.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Roger Rabbit wrote:Have you ever heard of the term "spiritual successor"?
The events of the previous films seemingly were, making a bunch of references to them is not the same as following the continuity."A Spiritual Successor is a type of sequel that is not part of the same world or story as its predecessor, but is nonetheless considered to be a successor because it's made by the same creators; shares common themes, styles, or elements; or, most likely, both. In other words, it's a sequel "in spirit"." http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lSuccessor
JurorNo.2 wrote: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.Roger Rabbit wrote:Have you ever heard of the term "spiritual successor"?
The events of the previous films seemingly were, making a bunch of references to them is not the same as following the continuity."A Spiritual Successor is a type of sequel that is not part of the same world or story as its predecessor, but is nonetheless considered to be a successor because it's made by the same creators; shares common themes, styles, or elements; or, most likely, both. In other words, it's a sequel "in spirit"." http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lSuccessor
Wow this looks amazing! I really enjoyed reading […]
@gpstar, Thanks for all this info. I’m wor[…]