|
CelticPredator posted:Go back to your maga meeting Fart City posted:This is a cool, normal brain post. We're living in a time where overgrown children in Hollywood can't accept or handle audiences rejecting their forced, overproduced garbage by lashing out at the people who make them filthy rich; these people are even more insecure than they are privileged. Pointing out the obvious apparently makes us MAGA supporting nazis according to their PR teams and the useful idiots like you who buy into their shameless bullshit.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
lol well thank god you’re fighting the good fight for us
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Fart City posted:lol well thank god you’re fighting the good fight for us Yeah, I'm sure Disney & Sony need your help. 
Slutitution fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
When did I cape for them, Chief? Don’t be so sensitive. This is the Cliff Yablonski site.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
I have no dog in this fight but I loving hate this fallback, “hey it’s jokes on a comedy forum lololololol” Grow a spine and be real.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I have no dog in this fight but Then who the gently caress cares. Slutitution and I are having a discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
"Obviously, someone over there thought that name recognition plus SJW pandering would guarantee massive profits." \  "She's an overgrown child who's still bitter about her lovely Ghostbusters film sucking harder than a trailer trash hoe." \ 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
Take your weird alt-right YouTuber talking points and gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 10:01
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Then who the gently caress cares. Slutitution and I are having a discussion. You killed it by going COMEDY SITE moron.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
Nothing good came of Ghostbusters 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Nothing good came of Ghostbusters 2016. Bill Murry was right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:You killed it by going COMEDY SITE moron. Thank u 4 your service Forums Cop, it is both necessary and constructive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Ghostbusters as a franchise fascinates me because people are diehard about it even though the entire franchise has only ever produced one good thing, the original movie Like, the entire legacy of the series is one good movie and a bunch of stuff never as good as that movie
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
The cartoon was pretty good and some of the comics are neat. They had a crossover with TMNT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Ghostbusters as a franchise fascinates me because people are diehard about it even though the entire franchise has only ever produced one good thing, the original movie I think, for me, what makes it kind of an invested franchise is that the potential for further exploration in it is so deep. It’s kind of such an inherently broad and elastic concept that you could mine like, a crazy amount of stories from it. It has a really strong setting, both in concept and tone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Ghostbusters as a franchise fascinates me because people are diehard about it even though the entire franchise has only ever produced one good thing, the original movie that cartoon was probably the best written cartoons of the 80s (only for 2 seasons) and the new comic is good as well. Hell even the second cartoon wasn't all that bad, but it didn't stand out as much as other shows. edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
It's definitely a concept that lends itself to serialization. I've only seen the two originals and the cartoon, and the cartoon had some genuinely terrifying moments to me as a child.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Fart City posted:I think, for me, what makes it kind of an invested franchise is that the potential for further exploration in it is so deep. It’s kind of such an inherently broad and elastic concept that you could mine like, a crazy amount of stories from it. It has a really strong setting, both in concept and tone. See, I get that, but in that case I feel like a lot of the aggression towards the remake is misplaced For me, ghostbusters has an excellent setting but the 80s were rife with high concept stories. The success of the film relies, I feel, much more on the strength of the acting, the writing, and the directing. Like, the remake fails to match the excellent production of the first film, but so does the sequel, cartoons, comics, etc. I guess my thing is, Ghostbusters as a film is singularly excellent and all the material that has come afterwards has kept the concept but failed to match the essential spirit of the first film
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Ghostbusters as a franchise fascinates me because people are diehard about it even though the entire franchise has only ever produced one good thing, the original movie I think that's pretty unfair. The first movie is classic obviously, but I enjoy the second one hell of a lot. The Real Ghosbusters cartoon was great when it started, the toys at the same time were ace, and the new comics are really good fun too. Really for me the only misstep for me is the 2016 movie, but I don't hate it anywhere near as much as some do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Ghostbusters as a franchise fascinates me because people are diehard about it even though the entire franchise has only ever produced one good thing, the original movie You need to remember the context and the audience. In those days there were only a few big movies a year, a limited vhs library at rental places, one or two movies on tv to choose from a day. Same as starwars and trek. We just didn't have a lot of high quality stuff to watch and cling to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:See, I get that, but in that case I feel like a lot of the aggression towards the remake is misplaced I do agree with that. I don’t think GB2016 is necessarily any worse than the lesser elements that already exist in the franchise, it’s just frustrating on a technical level with its improve-heavy construction. I almost wonder how different the perception of Ghostbusters as a brand would be if GB2 never existed. Like keep the cartoons and comics and whatnot, but take away any direct film sequel. Would the fan base still be as fervent, without the inherent suggestion of further installments? I honestly don’t know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
fist4jesus posted:You need to remember the context and the audience. The context of availability is something that's generally forgotten to most people. Home video is generally ubiquitous these days, you missed a movie you wanted to see in the theater? Just wait 6 months, and it'll be available On Demand or physical media. Up until really the early 90's, you had to watch the movies in theaters. I remember some movies would run for what seemed like forever. VHS tapes in the beginning were prohibitively expensive for the average home library, so you had to hope that your preferred Mom and Pop store would get a copy, if you wanted to see it again. Movies ran a lot more on TV back then too, which helped, but it really is a lot different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Pitwar posted:I think that's pretty unfair. The first movie is classic obviously, but I enjoy the second one hell of a lot. This is a good and sensible position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Pitwar posted:I think that's pretty unfair. The first movie is classic obviously, but I enjoy the second one hell of a lot. See, I guess for me stuff like the toys and comics and cartoons are ABOUT ghostbusters but they aren't ghostbusters. Like, for me, the quality of the film is about a lot more than the premise and set design, even with the premise, the film wouldn't have been a classic without the perfect storm of talent involved in the production. Like, it feels like the first film was a great movie about ghostbusters while everything since then has tried to be a great ghostbusters movie/comic/cartoon/etc. fist4jesus posted:Same as starwars and trek. We just didn't have a lot of high quality stuff to watch and cling to. See, I feel like its different because Wars and Trek have consistently matched our exceeded the maiden product. The best star trek is not the original series, but what came after. Same with Star Wars. However, Ghostbusters has never been matched by the first film, which makes it feel like kind of a false franchise. I feel the same way about Highlander even though its obviously not as good a movie as Ghostbusters. They are both "franchises" made up of products inferior to the original
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
I just found out that Leslie Jones is 51. I've heard the expression 'black don't crack,' but that doesn't cover it. She looks loving great for that age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:See, I guess for me stuff like the toys and comics and cartoons are ABOUT ghostbusters but they aren't ghostbusters. Like, for me, the quality of the film is about a lot more than the premise and set design, even with the premise, the film wouldn't have been a classic without the perfect storm of talent involved in the production. Like, it feels like the first film was a great movie about ghostbusters while everything since then has tried to be a great ghostbusters movie/comic/cartoon/etc. The Ghostbusters are called The Avengers nowadays. Hollywood has been making Ghostbusters movies nonstop for like 35 years. Godzilla 1998 is a Ghostbusters movie. It's not a perfect storm or lightning in a bottle. They have dozens of machines that spit electricity into bottles at a steady rate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The Ghostbusters are called The Avengers nowadays. Hollywood has been making Ghostbusters movies nonstop for like 35 years. Godzilla 1998 is a Ghostbusters movie. It's not a perfect storm or lightning in a bottle. They have dozens of machines that spit electricity into bottles at a steady rate. Sure if you reduce the film to part of the wide audience pleasing big budget action/comedy genre which I think certainly covers the surface of the films premise but doesnt actually speak to the appeal of the singular product
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
fist4jesus posted:In those days there were only a few big movies a year Hell no, the mid 80s were a golden age. Just look through the list of movies that were also released in 1984 (not just the blockbusters but the mid-tier hits, the sleeper hits and the soon-to-be cult favourites as well), it's pretty crazy how many iconic movies came out that year. Then click on [Next Year >] a few times, the hits keep on coming. It might feel like that doesn't compare to the ridiculous number of big screen movies, Netflix movies and direct-to-DVD junk we're constantly bombarded with these days but A) most of those are disposable junk, and B) there was a neverending avalanche of lovely made-for-TV movies and shlocky B-movies back then as well. poo poo, go through the list of all the movies released to cinemas in 2018 and try and pick any that'll still be beloved fan favourites 35 years from now. These days it feels like Hollywood is stuck in a perpetual loop of trying to recreate their 80s hits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
People act like Ghostbusters was this amazing lightning in a bottle that was only possible thanks to the combination of Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis' writing, Ivan Reitman's directing, Bill Murray's comic talent... but the fact is that the cartoon had essentially the same characters, written by other talented writers, and it worked great. As a little kid I was a fan of the cartoon before I saw the films. Ghostbusters 2 was the first film I saw in the cinema, that came out when I was 4 years old. I guess I must have been watching the series ever since I was 3, or even 2! I was also watching The Mysterious Cities of Gold. That was a bloody brilliant series. I think my mum couldn't standard most of the stupid drivel for toddlers, and so she would only put on kids' shows that she enjoyed, or at least didn't find irritating. Even though technically those shows might have been a bit too grown-up for me, and half of the ideas and dialogue must have gone over my head, I think it was mind expanding. The visuals and action in both shows were exciting enough to get me interested, while my mind had to work hard to decipher what was going on. Even now, watching as an adult, the first 2 seasons of Real Ghostbusters are pretty drat great. Obviously I have nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses for it. I have an image from that cartoon as my forum avatar image! But I will happily acknowledge that even in those first 2 seasons there are several dumb episodes, that I wouldn't ever want to watch again. But there are plenty of brilliant episodes. They clearly weren't just 'making a cartoon for kids', they were making a fun sci-fi/supernatural show for themselves, and for the parents that had to sit through those kids' cartoons. The show had writers that worked on The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits. It had stories about the afterlife, about the apocalypse, about deals with the devil. Their only concession to to it being a kids' show was that nothing was too sinister or too violent for kids' TV, and they'd put in a couple of minutes of wacky slimer hijinks at some point. And then from season 3 onwards it went down the toilet, as the suits in charge decided to make it more kids' friendly, to make it appeal more to 3 and 4 year olds than 8 and 10 year olds. (This despite the fact that I'd been watching it since age 2 and enjoying it just fine.) Despite being a massive Ghostbusters fan, who had a ton of toys and comics and the films on VHS, I stopped watching cartoon. 6-year-old me was entirely unimpressed with how silly and childish it had become. And it wasn't because I had grown up... when they then showed repeats of the earlier episodes, they were still great, and I appreciated new things about them I never did as a younger kid. Then Extreme Ghostbusters had just 1 or 2 of the original characters, was mostly a new team, was done by new writers (though I think the showrunner was one of the writers from the old show), and the concept still worked, Extreme Ghostbusters was pretty entertaining. Look at Supernatural. That's run for a gazillion seasons now, and if you gave Sam and Dean proton packs rather than shotguns half the episodes could fit as 'Ghostbusters' stories. Ghostbusters is a great concept that works without Bill Murray or Dan Aykroyd. Dudes - and/or ladies - using a combination of bravery and gadgets to fight ghosts and boogiemen. (Hell, even some episodes of Doctor Who could be re-written to be Ghostbusters stories!) your evil twin fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
your evil twin posted:People act like Ghostbusters was this amazing lightning in a bottle that was only possible thanks to the combination of Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis' writing, Ivan Reitman's directing, Bill Murray's comic talent... but the fact is that the cartoon had essentially the same characters, written by other talented writers, and it worked great. They were good stories about Ghostbusters but they still lacked some of the necessary edge and wit the first movie had Like, for me, the success of Ghostbusters is more about Harold Ramis quipping "it would have worked if you hadnt stopped me" than the proton packs and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Ehud posted:It will be in a small town. The cast will be adolescents who remind you of the stranger things kids. One of them will be related to Dan Akroyd. They’ll work with “uncle Ray” to repair some of the old equipment and fight a local paranormal threat with busted up gear that only works half the time. a better premise than the reboot
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Yeah I don’t think it’s realistic to say that the success of the first film wasn’t owed entirely to a rare alignment of talent both in front of and behind the camera. Not just the actors, but the special effects team, production design, score. There’s not really a weak link in the chain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Keep in mind the original script was terrible despite still having all the primary lore and concepts because it lacked that connection with the cultural zeitgeist that made it so effective. It's an interestingly Reagan era film that is also a huge part of its effectiveness
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:The context of availability is something that's generally forgotten to most people. Home video is generally ubiquitous these days, you missed a movie you wanted to see in the theater? Just wait 6 months, and it'll be available On Demand or physical media. This guy understands what I'm saying. My local place to hire movies was a gas station. They had 10-20 things to choose from. And that was normal. I rented commando and gremlins a lot. In the 90s we had block buster and co, new releases were expensive to watch. So I'd work my way through the older stuff, so thats when I got to see most of the stuff in the link below. Snowglobe of Doom posted:Hell no, the mid 80s were a golden age. Just look through the list of movies that were also released in 1984 (not just the blockbusters but the mid-tier hits, the sleeper hits and the soon-to-be cult favourites as well), it's pretty crazy how many iconic movies came out that year. Then click on [Next Year >] a few times, the hits keep on coming. You miss what i'm saying, or just had better availability and much more money than my family.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
fist4jesus posted:You miss what i'm saying, or just had better availability and much more money than my family. Okay I guess when you said "In those days there were only a few big movies a year" you actually meant "In those days I only got the chance to see a few big movies a year" which is a different thing altogether
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Sure if you reduce the film to part of the wide audience pleasing big budget action/comedy genre which I think certainly covers the surface of the films premise but doesnt actually speak to the appeal of the singular product That is the singular appeal. Ghostbusters was only 7 years after Star Wars. It was the first blockbuster of its kind, and now they’re ubiquitous. The highest grossing films of 1982 and 1983 (excluding Spielberg and Lucas joints) were Tootsie and Terms Of Endearment. Any hardcore Terms Of Endearment fans here? Shirts with the logo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The highest grossing films of 1982 and 1983 (excluding Spielberg and Lucas joints) were Tootsie and Terms Of Endearment. Why exclude Lucas and Spielberg
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Why exclude Lucas and Spielberg Because ET and Return of the Jedi don't count? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Why exclude Lucas and Spielberg Because, see, if you exclude things which disprove the point he was trying to make... then he just sounds like a total jackass speaking out of his rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Okay I guess when you said "In those days there were only a few big movies a year" you actually meant "In those days I only got the chance to see a few big movies a year" which is a different thing altogether My point was about availability. But you seem to want to argue. Yes, only a few big ones a year and typically because film was expensive, places outside America would either get things 6+ months later, or not at all. Film was expensive. VHS was still expensive. TV was 1-2 movies a day. Ghostbusters was a high quality product, in a time of scarcity. How many of us here made a dodgy vhs copy off the tv? And if you were fancy paused and skipped the addbreaks to various degrees of success? *** Compared to today. There are new movies every week. A few gems, mostly poo poo though. Will the gems be remembered 20 years from now? I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:24
|
|