Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4890633
Kingpin wrote:It's a lazy progression of the discussion, finding a video of someone on Youtube who holds similar views to you, and copy-and-pasting it in the absence of writing something similar. I think in some ways that's the same reason we occasionally see a post containing nothing but a meme image, because it's "just easier".
I actually made that video, and it took me almost an hour.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4890635
RichardLess wrote:Maybe if they could figure out a way to lower the budget... But even still the original was pretty much ignored and cost the studio quite a bit of money. I don't see why the movie needs to cost so much though. It's not like we are dealing with photo realistic CGI or major sets. I wonder where the money went. Filming in NYC is pricey. The movie didn't have any major league behind the scene players. What's even more interesting is that Rothman cut the budget down about 15-20 million if memory serves. I wonder how that affected the movie..
It was initially 169 million, and then they sliced 15 off, making it 154, but IMDb and others are listing it at 144, so another 10 was probably cut off. McCarthy got 14 reportedly, and Feig got 10, lowering the number to 120. I'm not sure what Wiig got, but since she's a smaller draw than McCarthy but a larger draw than Feig, let's assume she got 12, making it 108. Let's also assume that McKinnon, Jones, and Hemsworth got 8 apiece, leaving 84 in the budget. It was a SFX intensive movie, so let's assume the SFX got a third of the initial budget, leaving 36 in the production budget.

The rest of the 36 would've gone to building sets, props, catering, the remaining crew, and any other miscellaneous expenses.

Anyways, that's where it probably all went. When the budget was cut from 169 to 154, some major changes were reportedly made to the script, which I assume means that a lot of the budget went to the SFX. Not to mention having physical stand ins for the CGI creatures, etc. probably hiked up the amount the SFX costed by quite a bit.

To lower the budget, have the actors take smaller paychecks (and instead possibly receive a percentage of the profit, like they did on GB84), and use less SFX.
Last edited by Sav C on February 25th, 2017, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4890636
SpaceBallz wrote:I actually made that video, and it took me almost an hour.
Sorry for not assuming it was you behind the video (I guess?)

Beyond that though, I stick by my initial reaction: it's just more complaining, about both the reboot and the people who enjoyed it. I'm sorry to read it took almost an hour of your time to record and edit, as I believe that's an hour that could've been spend on something more enjoyable for you.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890639
It's great that you made the effort, it's just that we were all having a discussion back and forth, not just monologue-ing at each other. ;)
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4890644
Sav C wrote:
RichardLess wrote:Maybe if they could figure out a way to lower the budget... But even still the original was pretty much ignored and cost the studio quite a bit of money. I don't see why the movie needs to cost so much though. It's not like we are dealing with photo realistic CGI or major sets. I wonder where the money went. Filming in NYC is pricey. The movie didn't have any major league behind the scene players. What's even more interesting is that Rothman cut the budget down about 15-20 million if memory serves. I wonder how that affected the movie..
It was initially 169 million, and then they sliced 15 off, making it 154, but IMDb and others are listing it at 144, so another 10 was probably cut off. McCarthy got 14 reportedly, and Feig got 10, lowering the number to 120. I'm not sure what Wiig got, but since she's a smaller draw than McCarthy but a larger draw than Feig, let's assume she got 12, making it 108. Let's also assume that McKinnon, Jones, and Hemsworth got 8 apiece, leaving 84 in the budget. It was a SFX intensive movie, so let's assume the SFX got a third of the initial budget, leaving 36 in the production budget.

The rest of the 36 would've gone to building sets, props, catering, the remaining crew, and any other miscellaneous expenses.

Anyways, that's where it probably all went. When the budget was cut from 169 to 154, some major changes were reportedly made to the script, which I assume means that a lot of the budget went to the SFX. Not to mention having physical stand ins for the CGI creatures, etc. probably hiked up the amount the SFX costed by quite a bit.

To lower the budget, have the actors take smaller paychecks (and instead possibly receive a percentage of the profit, like they did on GB84), and use less SFX.
Where did you get those cast salaries from? I can tell you right now, without a shadow of a doubt, that Wiig did not get 12 million. I know McCarthy has had some success so it's possible she was paid 14 million but that sounds like an awful lot. Where did you get these figures from?? If McCarthy was paid 14 million...wow. Talk about a waste. She was the worst thing in the movie!
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890646
JurorNo.2 wrote:It's great that you made the effort, it's just that we were all having a discussion back and forth, not just monologue-ing at each other. ;)
Yeah, this is just a repeat of his previous accusations which were already addressed and most even reposted after his video.
Instead of reacting to it he just repeats the same points as if stuck in a loop.

(The only thing I forgot to mention again is the outcry over 'safety lights are for dudes'. If that's misandry you completely disregard the fact she made a dangerous and unstable machine that might kill them if they sneeze to loud. A safety light would in fact be smart to have on that highly irresponsible machine, but that's the joke.)
User avatar
By Sav C
#4890651
RichardLess wrote:
Sav C wrote: It was initially 169 million, and then they sliced 15 off, making it 154, but IMDb and others are listing it at 144, so another 10 was probably cut off. McCarthy got 14 reportedly, and Feig got 10, lowering the number to 120. I'm not sure what Wiig got, but since she's a smaller draw than McCarthy but a larger draw than Feig, let's assume she got 12, making it 108. Let's also assume that McKinnon, Jones, and Hemsworth got 8 apiece, leaving 84 in the budget. It was a SFX intensive movie, so let's assume the SFX got a third of the initial budget, leaving 36 in the production budget.

The rest of the 36 would've gone to building sets, props, catering, the remaining crew, and any other miscellaneous expenses.

Anyways, that's where it probably all went. When the budget was cut from 169 to 154, some major changes were reportedly made to the script, which I assume means that a lot of the budget went to the SFX. Not to mention having physical stand ins for the CGI creatures, etc. probably hiked up the amount the SFX costed by quite a bit.

To lower the budget, have the actors take smaller paychecks (and instead possibly receive a percentage of the profit, like they did on GB84), and use less SFX.
Where did you get those cast salaries from? I can tell you right now, without a shadow of a doubt, that Wiig did not get 12 million. I know McCarthy has had some success so it's possible she was paid 14 million but that sounds like an awful lot. Where did you get these figures from?? If McCarthy was paid 14 million...wow. Talk about a waste. She was the worst thing in the movie!
From this Hollywood Reporter Article: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/g ... ecs-789896
On the financial front, Rothman already has managed to tighten the budget on Paul Feig's Ghostbusters, planned for July 2016, without any apparent bloodshed (despite earlier friction with Feig when the director made The Heat at Fox). The Ghostbusters price tag when greenlit by Pascal was a hefty $169 million, with rich deals for talent, including $14 million for Melissa McCarthy and north of $10 million for Feig. Rothman couldn't do anything about those fees, but sources say Feig made tweaks to the script to reduce the cost to $154 million — just a few million above Rothman's target of $150 million.
The 12 million is a complete guess (I won't deny that), but I seriously doubt that Wiig would get less than Feig, and he got more than 10 million. Granted he is the director, but still, I'm sure Wiig is a much bigger draw than he is. There is a good chance I'm wrong though, I am a fan Kristen's work, not as much so Feig's, which makes me a bit biased.

Looking at her net worth, it's 16 million, whereas McCarthy's is 33. I'm not sure if those numbers are good for determining salaries, but 16 is almost half of 33, and half 14 is 7, so maybe she got around 8 million like I guessed for McKinnon, Jones, and Hemsworth. Keep in mind that Feig's net worth before Ghostbusters was 1.5 million, less than Wiig's. Honestly how he managed to swing 10 million is beyond me.
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4890654
Sav C wrote:
RichardLess wrote:
Where did you get those cast salaries from? I can tell you right now, without a shadow of a doubt, that Wiig did not get 12 million. I know McCarthy has had some success so it's possible she was paid 14 million but that sounds like an awful lot. Where did you get these figures from?? If McCarthy was paid 14 million...wow. Talk about a waste. She was the worst thing in the movie!
From this Hollywood Reporter Article: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/g ... ecs-789896
On the financial front, Rothman already has managed to tighten the budget on Paul Feig's Ghostbusters, planned for July 2016, without any apparent bloodshed (despite earlier friction with Feig when the director made The Heat at Fox). The Ghostbusters price tag when greenlit by Pascal was a hefty $169 million, with rich deals for talent, including $14 million for Melissa McCarthy and north of $10 million for Feig. Rothman couldn't do anything about those fees, but sources say Feig made tweaks to the script to reduce the cost to $154 million — just a few million above Rothman's target of $150 million.
The 12 million is a complete guess (I won't deny that), but I seriously doubt that Wiig would get less than Feig, and he got more than 10 million. Granted he is the director, but still, I'm sure Wiig is a much bigger draw than he is. There is a good chance I'm wrong though, I am a fan Kristen's work, not as much so Feig's, which makes me a bit biased.

Looking at her net worth, it's 16 million, whereas McCarthy's is 33. I'm not sure if those numbers are good for determining salaries, but 16 is almost half of 33, and half 14 is 7, so maybe she got around 8 million like I guessed for McKinnon, Jones, and Hemsworth. Keep in mind that Feig's net worth before Ghostbusters was 1.5 million, less than Wiig's. Honestly how he managed to swing 10 million is beyond me.
Those net worth figures are bogus. Not true in the least. Actors do not make as much as you think they do. Sure the big ones, the draws get big pay days. Will Smith, Robert Downey Jr, Angelina Jolie. They are in the 15-20 million club. But Mckinnion & Jones probably just got above 1-2.5 million. Hemsworth probably got 3 or less. McCarthy is a draw so 14 million, while insanely high, is likely. Feig didn't only direct. He wrote and produced. He is worth more than 1.5 million I can tell you that right now. His net worth was more than that after he made Freaks and Geeks. But having worked in the industry for some years those salary figures are astronomically high.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4890655
OK, but still the amount of the budget that went to the actors was probably pretty high. That and the SFX.

Kind of figured the net work figures didn't mean anything, that's why I said I didn't know if they were any good for estimating salaries.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890657
Effects were definitely a big cut, together with all the license rights.

In camera effects laid over with CGI are actually more troublesome to make then just going all CGI. They take more time so think out, set up and perfect. Especially when using rigs and puppets. I know some people hate the stylistic choice of the effects in this movie, but I absolutely adore them and love they went the extra (but costly) mile with them by going in camera with a lot of them.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4890658
Alphagaia wrote:Effects were definitely a big cut, together with all the license rights.

In camera effects laid over with CGI are actually more troublesome to make then just going all CGI. They take more time so think out, set up and perfect. Especially when using rigs and puppets. I know some people hate the stylistic choice of the effects in this movie, but I absolutely adore them and love they went the extra (but costly) mile with them by going in camera with a lot of them.
I just can't understand how anyone can like those effects. Nothing looks remotely real. It looks like a cartoon. I mean even the proton beams, something fans with photoshop can do, look terrible. Ah well.

The reboot was on TV the other day and I just couldn't even make it past the first scene. It's so choppy & lazy and just poor filmmaking. The opening scene to the original barely cuts at all. There's one bit in the reboot opening scene that could've been great. You know when tour guide throws the chair and it's stopped mid air and thrown back? If that scene had been played in a single wide master shot without a cut, it would've been GREAT. Instead it's choppy as hell. I know some of you are tired of hearing about the negatives of the reboot but to me the biggest mistake is the opening. The first two films don't have a single joke, heck the first film doesn't even have dialogue. They are played straight. They are creepy. Especially the first movie. The reboot is all jokey and silly. That terrible looking green slime bubbling up. It's just awful. Again it makes me think of the live action Scooby Doo movie mixed with the Haunted Mansion. It sets the wrong tone. Extreme Ghostbusters, a kids cartoon, had better opening scenes than that. Sorry, I know I know. The people who liked the movie are tired of hearing about it. But I just can't help myself. Everytime I try to look at the film with new eyes, to see if I can like it just a tiny bit, I get disgusted. Ugh. What could've been. Anyways, sorry, rant over.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890659
Funny. Most people against the movie say the opening is the strongest part of the movie, but it goes downhill after the title card for them.

Like or loath the visual style effects, we have a thread to praise/complain about them, they did go the extra mile to go in camera, with rigs, lights and puppets while they could have gone the cheap way. I have an eye for effects and imo the details in this movie are awesome. Especially the lighting. But I digress.

I recommend talking in the FXthread if you want to continue that rant, though the tired Scooby Doo comparison has already been made a popular complaint that was very unfair if seen side by side (they are actually more like 'the Frighteners' in style).
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4890660
Alphagaia wrote:Funny. Most people against the movie say the opening is the strongest part of the movie, but it goes downhill after the title card.
Like or loath the visual style effects, we have a thread to praise/complain about them, they are expertly done.

I recommend talking in the FXthread if you want to continue that rant, though the tired Scooby Doo comparison has already been made a popular complaint that was very unfair if seen side by side (they are actually more like 'the Frighteners' in style).
The Scooby Doo comparison is apt. They aren't the same just similar. Anyways, as I said in the post, rant over.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890661
I'll leave it at: it's too easy and sadly a bit ignorant (for me at least, because I care deeply about creating special effects) an comparison, tainted by people before you who wanted to downplay the hard work, execution and professionalism behind the effects.

Don't get me wrong. You can dislike them, but the comparison is a bit harsh, even if you go just by looks.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890673
For the record, when I was watching ATC with my friend the other night, she said the opening scene was way creepier than she expected. ;) It actually did a good job of segueing from the humor to the horror very quickly and naturally. I guess because the tour guide isn't going for slapsticky yucks. His tone is droll and unsettling right from the start. And the close up on the candle stick, with the music playing, let's you know to feel uneasy.

And btw, about the opening of GB84. The bit with the books moving from shelf to shelf. That is intended to be jokey as well as creepy. ;) Why is it so many fans feel the need to play down GB84's comedy? If you want a drama that's "played straight," then go watch one. Not GB84.
By pferreira1983
#4890675
Alphagaia wrote:Why is it bad people want to add something new to a character to set it apart from previous incantation and why is that action feminist just because the actrice is Feminist?
I don't thing you seem to understand the feminist movement. A feminist's role is to present women in more powerful ways. If Emma Watson is a feminist of course it makes sense she'd apply what she's learned to movies she's worked on. Why is it bad to start adding stuff? Why should she? Why fix what ain't broke? Here's the answer: she's a feminist and has to prove something. She belongs to the type of feminist movement that tries to find inequality everywhere. You and Juror talk about paranoia but Watsons is the one who feels to mess with the character of Belle who was a strong female character already!
SpaceBallz wrote:If it's forced it's pretty damn cringey, bro. I have no issues with strong women characters, but changing the original material and it's an "in-your-face" message it's cringey.
You hit the nail on the head! It's worse if you were a fan of the original movie as well.
scythemantis wrote:Gender is virtually never even mentioned.
Off the top of my head in the Extended Cut the team spend a minute wondering whether the FBI have genitals. One minute!

As for finding problems where none apparently exist that way of thinking doesn't really work all the time.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Some detractors just don't want to admit they overreacted to nothing. Others seem to have developed a Pavlovian type complex where the mere sight of women triggers cries of "Agenda!!!"
If it's obvious and reported about in articles everywhere yeah it's an agenda.
JurorNo.2 wrote:"Cringey" has become Internet speak for "look how cool I am." It's the girls in High School who giggle, "OMG, I can't believe she just SAID that!"
OMG? Blood blood what is witch you? :lol:
JurorNo.2 wrote:Here we go again, lol. Everything with women is now jinxed as a horrible agenda. What a world...
I know, ask Ashley Judd. What a nasty woman. Not as nasty as Hitler aka Donald Trump, not as nasty as Pokemon players, not as nasty as...ok sorry I couldn't resist. :mrgreen:
Kingpin wrote:Compare Mattel's Ghostbusters figures to Diamond's, and then compare both of those to Marvel's Mighty Heroes line, and then tell me they all take the same amount of effort as each other.
Don't Diamond make statues? If I'm correct that's quite a difference.
Kingpin wrote:Being able to spot CGI doesn't make you an expert in the field, it doesn't mean you actually know what goes into making CGI elements in film and television, it just means you're observant. If you've studied 3D computer graphics/3D computer animation in higher education then that'd make yours an informed opinion, but I think from prior conversation we've established you didn't study it at university.
You're right, I never studied 3D animation but I do have a keen eye for detail that sticks out like a sore thumb. I can for instance point to the flaws of the original Ghostbusters SFX. I can also try to understand today's animation for kids, it's fair to say Saturday morning cartoons are now extinct. I think studios should try to create animation that visually engages with kids instead of cutting cost for simplicity. I'm not sure why that's impossible to do but it's kids today who are ultimately missing out.
Kingpin wrote:Meanwhile you're prejudiced.
No I just take issue with changing stuff for the sake of it.
Kingpin wrote:Because maybe Belle was a bit underdeveloped as a character? That Emma wanted to give the character a bit more substance?
You can accuse the original animated movie of many things but Belle being underdeveloped definitely isn't one of them. She was a great character with a huge amount of development so I'm left with my original question: why make changes when they weren't necessary?
Kingpin wrote:I guess that's 1-1 on both sides, as you didn't respond to my question about religious influence on films. :)
I didn't really want to get into that debate because I don't see the relevance.
Kingpin wrote:Ghostbusters 2016 for me appears to have been the exception to the rule of his work and McCarthy's - something more palatable than the standard.
I agree to an extent, I just feel Feig wasn't pushing enough to make the reboot movie less one of his standard ones.
Kingpin wrote:This isn't meant to be any sort of threat, but I would strongly urge you to consider how you phrase things in future here, as remarks like that are likely to go down poorly with some of the members here.
Equality is extremely important. My issue is with equality being misused for political ends. It no longer becomes about equality but pushing inequality for selfish reasons which ruins what we enjoy. I'm not right and I'm not left. I sit in the middle like a tennis umpire and facepalm when one or the other tries to argue they're better. :wink:
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890678
pferreira1983 wrote:If it's obvious and reported about in articles everywhere yeah it's an agenda.
No. You are essentially jinxing an entire group of people by dismissing any praise of them as some kind of evil agenda. That is no better than jinxing a classmate by giggling every time they speak. It's school yard bullying tactic.
I know, ask Ashley Judd.
Btw, I could be giving her way too much credit, but I think she was going for like an old school beatnik poetry vibe with her speech, that's why it sounded odd.
worse if you were a fan of the original movie as well.
The original movie has a very pointed theme of the government and establishment science controlling what the public knows. You clearly have no problem with "agendas" like that.
By pferreira1983
#4890679
JurorNo.2 wrote:No. You are essentially jinxing an entire group of people by dismissing any praise of them as some kind of evil agenda. That is no better than jinxing a classmate by giggling every time they speak. It's school yard bullying tactic.
I'm not dismissing any praise. I just think it's overrated and undeserved. Speaking of what the media reports someone on a Ninja Turtles forum I visited made the comment that the latest Ninja Turtles movie was as much a failure in terms of Box Office as ATC but the mainstream media unlike with OOTS hasn't bothered to call that film out as a failure. It feels very one sided.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Btw, I could be giving her way too much credit,
No really you are. :lol: The whole speech is hilarious and is an example of your hyperbole.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890680
pferreira1983 wrote:I just think it's overrated and undeserved.
Hello, dismissal! :D
Speaking of what the media reports someone on a Ninja Turtles forum I visited made the comment that the latest Ninja Turtles movie was as much a failure in terms of Box Office as ATC but the mainstream media unlike with OOTS hasn't bothered to call that film out as a failure.
Because frankly most people don't care about those movies. I know you've all been trained to think "sequel equals success" but it's never that simple. TMNT had one good movie way back in 1990. More people remember the old cartoon show, and right now the current cartoon show is far more well received than the live action movies.
JurorNo.2 wrote:the whole speech is hilarious
As is the President it's aimed at. ;)
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4890685
JurorNo.2 wrote:It's great that you made the effort, it's just that we were all having a discussion back and forth, not just monologue-ing at each other. ;)
I had an evening to kill with too much equipment in front of me at my disposal. It was either that or practice my piano lessons :(
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4890691
JurorNo.2 wrote:For the record, when I was watching ATC with my friend the other night, she said the opening scene was way creepier than she expected. ;) It actually did a good job of segueing from the humor to the horror very quickly and naturally. I guess because the tour guide isn't going for slapsticky yucks. His tone is droll and unsettling right from the start. And the close up on the candle stick, with the music playing, let's you know to feel uneasy.

And btw, about the opening of GB84. The bit with the books moving from shelf to shelf. That is intended to be jokey as well as creepy. ;) Why is it so many fans feel the need to play down GB84's comedy? If you want a drama that's "played straight," then go watch one. Not GB84.


He is totally going for yucks, what are you talking about? Did you miss the lame Irish defence system joke? Why would your friend just happen to mention the scene was scarier than she expected? I'm not saying you are making it up to make a point, but that just seems like a strange thing to say. Why would she have an expectation of it at all?

Your drama comment is ridiculous and completely off base. Do you know what playing it straight means? I take it that you do not based off that ridiculous comment.

Obviously I disagree with your analysis of the opening of the original completely. But hey, it's your opinion and you are entitled to be wrong.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890692
Ya got me, Richard, I made it all up just to trick you. :roll:
User avatar
By timeware
#4890694
Could you explain your thoughtprocess why that line is negatively directed at all male GBfans?
It was an election year. NY times is notorious for taking things out of context. With the he said she said stuff already brewing they figured they could sell papers by latching onto it. Guilt the older generation into seeing a movie, guilt them into voting for HRC.
It's a bit of a weird pose and yeah, could be interpreted as a pelvic thrust, but that doesn't mean that it's anything sexual, or like the video you posted. You ever see someone mucking about with a water hose, they might end up in a pose like that. Even some fans have ended up looking a bit like that through no real intention.

Of the examples presented as indicating something sexist I honestly think that's one of the more subjective ones, more case of seeing something that isn't actually there.
If Feig didn't have a history of raunchy movies I would probably agree with you and even think that she's trying to copy Harold's pose from the original movie with a bit more enthusiasm.
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4890695
JurorNo.2 wrote:Ya got me, Richard, I made it all up just to trick you. :roll:
Ah the old sarcastic confession. What is that? Rule 32 in passive aggressive playbook?

Or is it rule 24? I've forgotten.

Moving on folks...

Poor Bill Paxton!!!
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890696
Lol, a Ghostbusters fansite where you get scolded for saying Ghostbusters is funny. The Internet truly has everything.
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4890698
JurorNo.2 wrote:Lol, a Ghostbusters fansite where you get scolded for saying Ghostbusters is funny. The Internet truly has everything.
wow! Someone scolded you for saying Ghostbusters was funny? When did that happen? Was it your friend?

Oh. Right. You think I was disagreeing with the fact that Ghostbusters was funny?

Oh Juror. Oh Poor misguided Juror.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890699
timeware wrote:
Could you explain your thoughtprocess why that line is negatively directed at all male GBfans?
It was an election year. NY times is notorious for taking things out of context. With the he said she said stuff already brewing they figured they could sell papers by latching onto it. Guilt the older generation into seeing a movie, guilt them into voting for HRC.
So according to you, 'the women are funny get over it' quote was aimed at all male GBfans to make them see a movie and vote Plant, I mean HRC?

The fact it also was Feigs sarcastic response to 'Why women are not funny' from a few years ago which some GBfans did not know but raised red flags over has nothing to do with it?
It's all tied to Clinton? Because a funny president gets the votes?
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4890700
Alphagaia wrote:
timeware wrote:
It was an election year. NY times is notorious for taking things out of context. With the he said she said stuff already brewing they figured they could sell papers by latching onto it. Guilt the older generation into seeing a movie, guilt them into voting for HRC.
So according to you, 'the women are funny get over it' quote was aimed at all male GBfans to make them see a movie and vote Plant, I mean HRC?

The fact it also was Feigs sarcastic response to 'Why women are not funny' from a few years ago which some GBfans did not know but raised red flags over has nothing to do with it?
It's all tied to Clinton? Because a funny president gets the votes?
I can just imagine some random person stumbling upon this forum and reading this exchange sans context(even with context it's crazy) and nope-ing the heck out of here.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890701
Yeah, it's always fun getting to know Timewares reasoning and secret plots behind such things as a movie review.

Regarding the opening scene:

Yes the tourguide made some 'tourguide' jokes when doing his routine, but he changed his act when standing near the door. This is also where the tone of the scene shifts. A scare is always better after a laugh. The candle falling creates tension after a gruesome story, with the tension releasing a bit after revealing he faked the falling candle, but immediately the screws get tightened again when the actual haunting starts.

You may not have found the scene scary, Richardless. But I think you don't have the favored response for that scene. Especially when the ghost suddenly flinged the Tourguide up the wall the audience is made sure this was getting seriously dangerous, especially after mentioning Eldridge was a serial killer.
JurorNo.2 liked this
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

I'd really like to see the new t-shirt unlocks t[…]

Hey and welcome

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]