Discuss the new Ghostbusters movie to be released in 2016, directed by Paul Feig.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896799
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 actually, they did the bee appearance, and then two episodes as the Blues Brothers proper, all before they did the movie. They were also #1 on Billboard and did live concert appearances before the movie. They left SNL in part to do the movie and then didn't come back (well John came back once by himself). That's what I find so fascinating about the whole idea, the audience feel in love with the music first, and THEN got to know them as characters.

Oh and yes for your earlier question, I'm a New Yorker. :)
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896804
Sav C wrote: You know I still haven't seen Blues Brothers


Oh yeah, definitely see it. It will blow your mind that Ray Stanz and Elwood Blues are played by the same guy, never mind written by the same guy. He doesn't get enough credit for his range (looking at you, Collider).

Still, maybe the question we should be asking is not whether or not ATC should get a sequel, but a prequel. :)


That's an interesting point!
Alphagaia, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4896805
Perhaps it explains Egons statue and why the OGB lost their memories, just like that city that just disappeared. People moved on, but why?
JurorNo.2, Sav C, TobyMobias liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896806
RichardLess wrote: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.


I'll go out on a limb here, Aykroyd is the only one who is remotely funny in 1941, and it's because he's doing his own SNL shtick rather than following the script, lol. It is really hard to believe that same team went on to do Back to the Future. :shock:

But yes, you can't argue that 1941 didn't go big!

Blues Brothers is just oozing with cool plus it's got charisma & confidence to spare. The less said about the sequel the better. Ugghhhh.


From what I read, after it became apparent the studio interference had really screwed things up, Aykroyd told Landis to just make sure the music gets show cased well, because there were all these legendary Blues musicians. And indeed those are easily the best parts of the movie.

Man Dan Aykroyd should try writing more.


Well he did. Sony stupidly rejected it. We've been over this for a year now. ;)
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on August 11th, 2017, 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By featofstrength
#4896808
Alphagaia wrote: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.


I thought it was going fine, too.

But then here came the "I don't like the sound of his voice/not funny" and "I don't need reviews to make up my own mind" retreads, so why not?

Why even come to this thread if you 1) know you aren't going to agree with points made by the review no matter how reasoned and/or 2) can't even be bothered to watch it in the first place?

You didn't agree with me in saying "you can do better than that?" As far as participation and criticism goes?

:whatever:

Kingpin wrote:
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.


Sorry you are just now getting the Shoji tape...sometimes it takes a while for these things to make it overseas.
I'm also sorry to inform you that Shoji retired a few years back, so if you were planning a trip to see him, you might put that on hold. Branson has lots of other shows...I peg your sense of humor as a Yakov guy, but sadly, he has retired too. :(
Last edited by featofstrength on August 11th, 2017, 10:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
seekandannoy, deadderek, SpaceBallz and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4896809
Come on, don't go 'well he started it'. Finish it.

If you don't agree with his statements, call him out on that instead of adding to the pile which in turn targets others as well, ok?

To his defense he did bother to watch it, he just could not finish it.
Last edited by Alphagaia on August 11th, 2017, 11:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By featofstrength
#4896810
Alphagaia wrote:Come on, don't go 'well he started it'. Finish it.

If you don't agree with his statements, call him out instead of adding to the pile, ok?

To his defense he did bother to watch it, he just could not finish it.


But you took a side with your scolding, so...
and you're back in your rut as well.

Welcome back!
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896811
Nobody's mad at you personally for posting Plinkett's review. It's just that he's an acquired taste. Or I personally have found him funnier before. No big. Just a back and forth discussion.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4896812
I did not interpretat his remark as an slight, which is why I did not act of it. Does not mean it cannot be a slight, ofcourse.

Talk it out, instead of throwing fuel on the fire when something bothers you. We need to change and talk about that kind of behavior (on both sides) so we can understand each other, otherwise we are back to the US vs them mentality of a year ago.

featofstrength wrote:Why even come to this thread if you 1) know you aren't going to agree with points made by the review no matter how reasoned and/or 2) [u]can't even be bothered to watch it in the first place?


Why do people who dislike GB:ATC, some of which did not even want to see it, come to part of the forum of GBFANS dedicated to GB:ATC?

I can answer both with: as long as they do it in a civil way, they should be allowed to discuss the pros and cons.
JurorNo.2, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4896816
featofstrength wrote:But then here came the "I don't like the sound of his voice/not funny" and "I don't need reviews to make up my own mind" retreads, so why not?


Would you be making nearly half the fuss and getting so bent out of shape with me not being interested in watching the rest of the video if it were predominately positive about the reboot? (Even if it were positive, I probably wouldn't sit down to watch it as like my earlier remark, I prefer reviews to be short and to the point rather than getting lost in the reviewer's essay of film dissection. In a timespan of 85 I'd rather get caught up with Voltron or Once Upon a Time).
I get that reviewers have to invent their own gimmicks in order to be unique against their peers, and to be honest the voice and his "murderer persona" are pretty stupid gimmicks if that's really the best he can come up with. Earlier this year a British film critic/reviewer I greatly admired passed away, you're probably not familiar with him (his name was Barry Norman, and used to work for the BBC), he didn't need gimmicks to give thoughtful and fair reviews - a critic/reviewer worth their salt doesn't need them.

featofstrength wrote:Why even come to this thread if you 1) know you aren't going to agree with points made by the review no matter how reasoned and/or 2) can't even be bothered to watch it in the first place?


I can't speak for Alpha, I'm here because I still have to take a casual glance across new topics just to check on their content and make sure there isn't any misbehaving going on, part and parcel with the Moderator title.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By featofstrength
#4896819
Kingpin wrote:
featofstrength wrote:But then here came the "I don't like the sound of his voice/not funny" and "I don't need reviews to make up my own mind" retreads, so why not?


Would you be making nearly half the fuss and getting so bent out of shape with me not being interested in watching the rest of the video if it were predominately positive about the reboot? (Even if it were positive, I probably wouldn't sit down to watch it as like my earlier remark, I prefer reviews to be short and to the point rather than getting lost in the reviewer's essay of film dissection. In a timespan of 85 I'd rather get caught up with Voltron or Once Upon a Time).
I get that reviewers have to invent their own gimmicks in order to be unique against their peers, and to be honest the voice and his "murderer persona" are pretty stupid gimmicks if that's really the best he can come up with. Earlier this year a British film critic/reviewer I greatly admired passed away, you're probably not familiar with him (his name was Barry Norman, and used to work for the BBC), he didn't need gimmicks to give thoughtful and fair reviews - a critic/reviewer worth their salt doesn't need them.

featofstrength wrote:Why even come to this thread if you 1) know you aren't going to agree with points made by the review no matter how reasoned and/or 2) can't even be bothered to watch it in the first place?


I can't speak for Alpha, I'm here because I still have to take a casual glance across new topics just to check on their content and make sure there isn't any misbehaving going on, part and parcel with the Moderator title.


There was nothing wrong with anything Alph said...hence the "like" on his earlier posts on this topic.

Alph and I have gone rounds before. So have Juror and I (I don't agree with his views on this particular thread, but I have respected it. Might just be my perception, but we got out of some heated discussions on our own and can still joke around.

Thanks for sharing your culture with us. I will Google him.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896820
featofstrength wrote: So have Juror and I (I don't agree with his views on this particular thread, but I have respected it.


Well I'll meet you halfway. It's very possible I'm not finding this review as funny in part because I don't hate ATC, the way I did, say, Avatar.

However, I will stand behind my earlier point that Abby is not the Ray of the group, nor is Erin the Venkman. Plinkett jumped to that conclusion because Erin is the first one we meet. But the parallels aren't clean cut like that.
By RichardLess
#4896824
JurorNo.2 wrote:
RichardLess wrote: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.


I'll go out on a limp here, Aykroyd is the only one who is remotely funny in 1941, and it's because he's doing his own SNL shtick rather than following the script, lol. It is really hard to believe that same team went on to do Back to the Future. :shock:

But yes, you can't argue that 1941 didn't go big!

Blues Brothers is just oozing with cool plus it's got charisma & confidence to spare. The less said about the sequel the better. Ugghhhh.


From what I read, after it became apparent the studio interference had really screwed things up, Aykroyd told Landis to just make sure the music gets show cased well, because there were all these legendary Blues musicians. And indeed those are easily the best parts of the movie.

Man Dan Aykroyd should try writing more.


Well he did. Sony stupidly rejected it. We've been over this for a year now. ;)


Say what? What did Sony reject? Are you talking about the GB: Hellbent script or something else?

Did Dan and Harold ever produce an actual GB3 draft together? I've said this before but there is an interesting book to be made about the development history on GB3. How many versions of various scripts were there? There's a treasure trove of unread, unproduced Ghostbusters 3 scripts out there in the world. Has anyone heard of J.W Rinzler? He wrote the "Making of Star Wars" books that go in depth on the original trilogy. He did one for Indiana Jones too(though that was one book covering all 4 films. The SW books get a book per movie). Anyways, he'd make a great choice for author of a GB book.

I'd like for Dan to write more than just Ghostbusters stuff too. I guess he's just happy resting on his laurels and vodka money.

Has anyone tried the Crystal Head Vodka? I'm not much of a drinker and even when I do Vodka isn't my favourite but man does that Vodka go down easy. There's no bite to it. Plus the empty bottle looks awesome and always generates interest from guests.

Careful when going out on a "limp" you may loose a limb
By philmorgan81
#4896825
JurorNo.2 wrote:
featofstrength wrote: So have Juror and I (I don't agree with his views on this particular thread, but I have respected it.


Well I'll meet you halfway. It's very possible I'm not finding this review as funny in part because I don't hate ATC, the way I did, say, Avatar.

However, I will stand behind my earlier point that Abby is not the Ray of the group, nor is Erin the Venkman. Plinkett jumped to that conclusion because Erin is the first one we meet. But the parallels aren't clean cut like that.




You're right he really isn't drawing good parallels between characters. It is a bit hard to figure out what he is saying for humor and what is general analysis. Erin and Venkman are very different characters. Erin seems to be person with a very low opinion of herself and desperate for approval. Venkman is Con Artist, bit of an ass, quick witted and doesn't really seem to care what others thinks of him. With the exception of Dana of course. Erin does seem to be the central focus of the ensemble. That is about the closest thing I can see to drawing the Venkman comparison. Abby may be just as enthusiastic as Ray when it comes to wanting to explore the supernatural, but I don't think she has nearly the encyclopedic knowledge of Lore as Ray does. For that matter I don't think any of the ATC crew knows as much about supernatural lore as Ray does. At least their knowledge hasn't been fully explored yet. Patty may be great at History which would help with a lot of cases, but I'm not sure how much she would know if they were dealing with an entity that was never alive like a Demon or something.

Sorry I went off on a tangent there. Your point stands though his comparisons are not very fair. :) :) :)
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896826
RichardLess wrote:

Say what? What did Sony reject? Are you talking about the GB: Hellbent script or something else?


No I do mean the Hellbent script. As much as I liked the reboot, Sony was wrong not to use it at all. And yea a making of book would be fascinating at this point!

I'd like for Dan to write more than just Ghostbusters stuff too.


Well that Nothing But Trouble movie was treated so poorly, maybe it's hard after that.

Careful when going out on a "limp" you may loose a limb


Lolol, yikes, thank you.
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4896829
lmao.

Maybe I'll do a re-edit of the film someday with some tweaks. With all the deleted content I'm sure we can come up with a few different movies.
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#4896832
RichardLess wrote:Did Dan and Harold ever produce an actual GB3 draft together? I've said this before but there is an interesting book to be made about the development history on GB3. How many versions of various scripts were there?
1. That's a tough question to an answer. At least 5. Maybe up to 7 or 8. Ghostbusters II had something like at least 15 total so possibly, Ghostbusters III might have had anywhere from 5-8 from who knows how many more there could be.

We know for Hellbent, there's at least one draft stamped March 10, 1999 done by Dan Aykroyd and Tom Davis.

We know for their collaboration with Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky, there were 3 drafts done over 4-5 years ( about June 2008 to some time in 2012). Aykroyd rewrote the second draft to add in a bigger role for Murray.

Then at least one draft with Etan Cohen from around July 2012 to 2014 but probably more.

2. Harold Ramis' involvement. It's clear Aykroyd, Ramis, and Reitman collaborated on at least one. This is one that Sony signed off on. It was mentioned by Aykroyd in "Time Is A But A Window: Ghostbusters II and Beyond" in the special features of the Ghostbusters I and II 2014 gift set. He said he had written two "really solid" third movie scripts and a third concept, that Sony signed off on, with the late Harold Ramis. Also, Reitman confirmed Ramis was involved in the Eisenberg-Supnitsky drafts. So Ramis was involved in 3-4 drafts at least.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896845
Can I bring up something about the various pop culture references in ATC? I know when the movie came out people complained that the Ozzie thing was too dated because Ozzie and Sharon had broken up. Well, they just renewed their vows last May, so there. 8)
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4896846
Found another (little) thing that's not correct in the review: he states continuity is a problem because the Rockconcert is played during the daylight, when all the posters in the movie show it's a 24 hour long rockshow (with ozzy as the big name).
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By featofstrength
#4896861
JurorNo.2 wrote:Can I bring up something about the various pop culture references in ATC? I know when the movie came out people complained that the Ozzie thing was too dated because Ozzie and Sharon had broken up. Well, they just renewed their vows last May, so there. 8)


Not just dated, but the cameo had already gone as far as it could go in Goldmember.
Image


Alphagaia wrote:Found another (little) thing that's not correct in the review: he states continuity is a problem because the Rockconcert is played during the daylight, when all the posters in the movie show it's a 24 hour long rockshow (with ozzy as the big name).


Speaking of dated references, here one to cover the concert thing:
Image
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896862
I'm sorry, having watched the reboot again last night with a friend, I'm going back to militant mode. Plinkett is full of it here. ATC has a lot of tension building, low key moments. None of his cliche "improvements" are remotely necessary. The movie isn't filled with "go boom" humor. And the cameos are only painful to a fanboy/girl who's obsessed with being jaded and above it all.

And again, Plinkett's character parallels are way off.

Sorry, Plinkett, you may have pleased a lot of bitter fanboys/girls, but you jumped the shark in doing so. That's what fandoms are about today, rejecting quality for belonging to the crowd. Once again, I'll be over here enjoying GB2 and ATC. RLM, I hope those "reviews" haunt you forever as the moments you ceased to be critics, and just became fanboys. :)

And again, featofstrength, I'm not mad at you for sharing. This is just what discussion boards are for.
Alphagaia, Sav C, TobyMobias liked this
By RichardLess
#4896868
JurorNo.2 wrote:I'm sorry, having watched the reboot again last night with a friend, I'm going back to militant mode. Plinkett is full of it here. ATC has a lot of tension building, low key moments. None of his cliche "improvements" are remotely necessary. The movie isn't filled with "go boom" humor. And the cameos are only painful to a fanboy/girl who's obsessed with being jaded and above it all.

And again, Plinkett's character parallels are way off.

Sorry, Plinkett, you may have pleased a lot of bitter fanboys/girls, but you jumped the shark in doing so. That's what fandoms are about today, rejecting quality for belonging to the crowd. Once again, I'll be over here enjoying GB2 and ATC. RLM, I hope those "reviews" haunt you forever as the moments you ceased to be critics, and just became fanboys. :)

And again, featofstrength, I'm not mad at you for sharing. This is just what discussion boards are for.


Yes. GB'16 is perfect and has no flaws. Anyone who says otherwise is a stupid fanboy whose angry.

Come on Juror. I had hoped we had moved on from stuff like this.
By pferreira1983
#4896875
Alphagaia wrote:Well, I just hope we don't reset as a fanbase and start the whole conflict again. I will be watching it ofcourse!
Are you policing Sony or something? :lol:

RichardLess wrote:The peace we have made will not be broken. It's cost us too many fans, losses on both sides. Apparently we have other things to argue about. Like Dr. Who lol
Tell me about it. :roll:

JurorNo.2 wrote:Yeah I actually think the Doctor Who backlash helped out ATC in a way. People are starting to get sick of the rants about evil feminism destroying childhoods or whatever.
Oh so that's why I've suffered online abuse for having a different view. Cheers, thanks for that assessment Juror. :roll:

MagicPrime wrote:The RLM Reviews of the Next Generation Era, Star Trek films are pretty good. I always felt something was off about the NG Films and when I watched their review I realized it was that Picard was entirely different between the mediums.
In Generations he's exactly the same as in the TV series. It's when we get into First Contact afterwards that he changes.

Sav C wrote:It's just cool to think that Youtube is a world in its own. :)
The Internet is like an entirely new world. :-D

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)
Could it be because in your eyes people aren't allowed to say anything negative about ATC? :wink:

featofstrength wrote:Why even come to this thread if you 1) know you aren't going to agree with points made by the review no matter how reasoned and/or 2) can't even be bothered to watch it in the first place?
I call it stubbornness but he also doesn't like that type of review so...

Alphagaia wrote:To his defense he did bother to watch it, he just could not finish it.
Ha, ha! That's like the GB Fans quote of the year. I love how understated that sounds. :mrgreen:

Kingpin wrote:I get that reviewers have to invent their own gimmicks in order to be unique against their peers, and to be honest the voice and his "murderer persona" are pretty stupid gimmicks if that's really the best he can come up with. Earlier this year a British film critic/reviewer I greatly admired passed away, you're probably not familiar with him (his name was Barry Norman, and used to work for the BBC), he didn't need gimmicks to give thoughtful and fair reviews - a critic/reviewer worth their salt doesn't need them.
Okay two things:

1) Plinkett persona is that of a couch potato or basement dweller, not a murderer.

2) I don't see how you can expect a Barry Norman review from this guy. You've used two very separate examples.

SpaceBallz wrote:Maybe I'll do a re-edit of the film someday with some tweaks. With all the deleted content I'm sure we can come up with a few different movies.
But is it possible to make a good film from all that? :wink:

RichardLess wrote:Come on Juror. I had hoped we had moved on from stuff like this.
As Kingpin has said in the past I can be quite repetitive in my views although it's not just me. I think we're all guilty of acting that way.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4896880
Oh but I have to say, Plinkett is supposed to be a murderer, at least, that's what he always brags about. I mean, I always took him at his word anyway!
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4896881
I think we all know Plinkett brings up a few good points, but as pointed out also some bad or misguided ones.

In the end, I don't think it changed anyone's opinion.
JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this
By RichardLess
#4896882
Alphagaia wrote:I think we all know Plinkett brings up a few good points, but as pointed out also some bad or misguided ones.

In the end, I don't think it changed anyone's opinion.


the only thing it may do is cause someone to love GB'84 even more. For me, that's the best part of the review. He really understands why GB84 works the way it does.
Alphagaia, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By DarkSpectre
#4896946
I watched the review in its entirety and felt that it brought up a lot of decent points on the way that the film was shot and written. As someone who's actually edited the film down, taking out a lot of that unnecessary line-o-rama makes the film flow more and that the jokes really don't have time to land due to the need to keep throwing out lines. So some of those points were correct. I don't agree with the characterizations. I feel that they took this order: Ray, Egon, Peter, Winston and took the ladies and turned them all a half turn so Yates is a Ray/Egon, Holtzmann an Egon/Peter , Tolan Peter/Winston and Wiig Winston/Ray or as close to it.

AND if anyone can tell me how to get images to act[…]

I made them with my 3d printer. The models are on […]

I'm having a bit of trouble downloading the code. […]

I didn't like the idea of using Zip Ties to hold t[…]