Why it's important to be honest about the Ghostbusters remake

Started by PickelledEggs, July 23, 2016, 03:14:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PickelledEggs

Quote from: Atheon on July 23, 2016, 09:22:30 PM
But a "feminist" movie, like the MRAs are claiming? Other than hiring a "himbo" for a secretary (a role reversal of a stereotypical situation), I see nothing that makes a "feminist" statement. Merely having women in a lead role does not a feminist movie make.
I don't think it was a feminist movie, and most people that have honest reviews don't either. It does seem like the marketing team saw the comments going back and forth between the feminists and mras and used it to gain publicity for a movie they knew was not up to par, though.

Nonsensei

Quote from: Atheon on July 23, 2016, 09:22:30 PM
It was... okay, I guess. I wasn't bored, and I did laugh many times. Still, many jokes fell flat. ("Where are my glasses? Oh, they're in my hand." - huh, am I missing an inside joke?)

But a "feminist" movie, like the MRAs are claiming? Other than hiring a "himbo" for a secretary (a role reversal of a stereotypical situation), I see nothing that makes a "feminist" statement. Merely having women in a lead role does not a feminist movie make.

Uh, the whole feminist angle was started by Sony after the overwhelmingly negative response to the first trailer. The director went on social media accusing any male who didn't like the trailer of being a misogynist and disliking it only because the cast was all women. Media outlets and SJW twits on social media clamped on to the idea, ensuring that it became impossible for a man to dislike the movie for any reason other than that he hates women.

It was a brilliant marketing move, ensuring that critics were too terrified to give it an honest (bad) review. It also pressured men into going to see it lest they be labeled a bigot, while also drawing the SJW/feminist audience because now the film was about more than just entertainment. A simple, baseless accusation on twitter doubled their first week box office while simultaneously ensuring that critics could not be too harsh with them, all made possible by the toxic atmosphere that SJW's have created over the last decade in regards to gender issues. The wonderful hilarity is that SJW's either wont realize or wont care that their world view was directly manipulated for corporate profits.

Sony had a lot riding on this Ghostbusters remake. Sony picture studios is in financial trouble after having made a series of terrible movies that have either done average at the box office or totally bombed. They were hoping to make a marvel-esque cinematic universe out of the ghostbusters franchise and this reboot was supposed to be the seed for that. They couldn't afford for it to do poorly or be reviewed poorly and, apparently, they had no qualms about manipulating people to protect themselves from the natural consequences of having made a bad movie.
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

Hydra009

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 23, 2016, 09:29:13 PMThe point of the video... one of the main points, at least, which, for those of you that have actually watched it already know... is that

Hollywood is getting more and more lazy.
Given that you're having a tough time getting people to watch a 14 minute youtube movie review (with one person assuming the contents of a video he hasn't watched, LOL) I'd argue that the laziness is just Hollywood matching their audience, unfortunately.

QuoteThey don't write new movies. The make cheap un-thought out remakes.
I agree.  After my earlier rant about this reboot/remake craze, I was genuinely curious about why this is going on and looked for a reason behind it all.  Comicbookgirl19 gave a pretty plausible explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOttfoJ4ygU

tl;dw for the lazy:  studios are making films more for international audiences than domestic audiences.  To do this, they take successful IPs and get the turd train rolling.  Even if it bombs in the States, it's novel and exciting for Chinese and Russian moviegoers.  Ca-ching.

PickelledEggs

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2016, 10:15:50 PM
I'd argue that the laziness is just Hollywood matching their audience, unfortunately.

Yes. Similarly with the gaming industry and all these remasters. Bethesda is even doing it now. Skyrim hd? how about work on a new game

They perpetuate each other.

Atheon

Quote from: Mermaid on July 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
Since we're being honest here: I hated the original Ghostbusters. I thought it was dumb.
I liked it, but I didn't think it deserved all the raves it got back in the day.

Case in point: back then everyone laughed at the "This man has no dick" joke, but I didn't find it that funny, and I still don't. I mean I get the joke, but it's just not a very good one, certainly not deserving of the laughter and meme status it received back then.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

Hydra009

Quote from: Atheon on July 23, 2016, 10:18:31 PM
I liked it, but I didn't think it deserved all the raves it got back in the day.

Case in point: back then everyone laughed at the "This man has no dick" joke, but I didn't find it that funny, and I still don't. I mean I get the joke, but it's just not a very good one, certainly not deserving of the laughter and meme status it received back then.
Eh, I liked it.  Granted, I was like 5 at the time, so dick jokes were a big hit.  Like I tried to explain before, I think the series was more fun than funny.  Bill Murray's antics were like 50% of the appeal of the movie.

Sal1981

a sober review which cut through all the bullshit. I probably will not go see it.

aitm

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2016, 10:15:50 PM
Given that you're having a tough time getting people to watch a 14 minute youtube movie review


14 minutes? On a movie review? Somebody spent 14 minutes reviewing a remake of a third rate movie and you guys spent 14 minutes watching it?  LOL…..oy
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Hydra009

Quote from: aitm on July 23, 2016, 10:32:34 PM14 minutes? On a movie review? Somebody spent 14 minutes reviewing a remake of a third rate movie
A reviewer reviews something.  Weird, huh?

Quoteand you guys spent 14 minutes watching it?  LOL…..oy
Ummm...yes?  :eh:

GSOgymrat

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 23, 2016, 07:01:55 PM
Did you watch the video I posted?

Yes. I didn't expect Ghostbusters to be art and I wasn't emotionally attached to the original. The comic book girl has different expectations for movies. I don't expect movies like Ghostbusters, Vacation, House Bunny or Anchorman to be anything other than formulated ridiculousness with some funny jokes. As far as the online controversy, I didn't read about it because I wasn't that interested. I have read about the whole Leslie Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Twitter drama, which does have some interesting aspects regarding censorship.

stromboli

See Flight of the Phoenix 1965 with Jimmy Stewart (who flew a bomber in WW2) and the 2004 remake with Dennis Quaid. The first movie was original and nailbiting. the reboot will make you puke.  OTOH, the Batman reboot was better than the originals. Most cases I agree. Reboots are just Hollywood cons for making bucks. I won't see the latest Star Wars movies until I can see them free on TV. I haven't been in a movie theater in more than a decade.

SGOS

Quote from: stromboli on July 23, 2016, 11:06:20 PM
See Flight of the Phoenix 1965 with Jimmy Stewart (who flew a bomber in WW2) and the 2004 remake with Dennis Quaid.

I had no idea that Hollywood did a remake of the Flight of the Phoenix.  I would have gone to see it if I knew.  Although, the original was such a good movie, I don't know what could have been done to make it better.  Actually, it seems to me that the whole point of a remake is to make it better the second time around, but sometimes it just seems more like a repeat.  If you can't make it better, why not just re-release the original?

AllPurposeAtheist

#27
All honesty aside, what a great movie and great video about a bunch of halfwits thinking their opinions are worth so much more than a failed embossing pattern on a brand of toilet paper that didn't sell very well anywhere because shit doesn't stick to it.

Yeah..I could fucking care less..didn't care for the first one and don't care about any subsequent remakes..  What IS important is who are the people designing toilet paper embossing patterns?  Is there a special college curriculum dedicated to obtaining a PhD in toilet paper embossing pattern technology? Maybe it's a specific artistic endeavor being kept hidden from the public at large that only the elite of the elite get to work at.

AHHA! I KNEW IT!  I knew that it's limited to the professional elite class!
QuoteAn Oxford professor, Sir Roger Penrose, who claims the makers of Kleenex quilted toilet paper used his designs, is seeking destruction of all stocks of the paper. He designed a special pattern for tiles in 1974 which gives a series of distinctive star shapes and owns the copyright for the pattern, according to a High Court writ.

Makers of Kleenex quilted toilet paper, Kimberly Clark Ltd, have made and sold the paper, which uses his pattern the writ says.

Sir Roger, Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, is demanding the makers hand over all copies of his copyright pattern and an order for all articles or documents to be forfeited to him and his company, Pentaplex Ltd, or to be destroyed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/kleenex-art-that-ended-in-tears-1266536.HTML

Now that shit's important! 
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Gawdzilla Sama

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

mauricio

Quote from: Atheon on July 23, 2016, 09:22:30 PM
It was... okay, I guess. I wasn't bored, and I did laugh many times. Still, many jokes fell flat. ("Where are my glasses? Oh, they're in my hand." - huh, am I missing an inside joke?)

But a "feminist" movie, like the MRAs are claiming? Other than hiring a "himbo" for a secretary (a role reversal of a stereotypical situation), I see nothing that makes a "feminist" statement. Merely having women in a lead role does not a feminist movie make.

the feminist statement was not the movie itself but it's marketing campaign made by the production team themselves with the girl power photo and their comments on the media and by many independent media and social media publications wanking themselves over smashing the patriarchy by watching and defending a movie that had a shitty trailer because obviously only misogynerds would hate on a painfully average reboot.