|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Wait, how are they con men? The special on proto-charging? Did you not see the first 10 minutes of the movie? Venkman cons a co-ed into thinking she has psychic powers to date him/sleep with him. Yager confirms this with his sick burn about how ridiculous his credibility is in the scientific community because of how he uses his methods like a game. He also got the mayor to give him an insane amount of personnel and get away from possibly decades of jail time with a few simple words and a smile, like he's been doing this poo poo for years.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Wait, how are they con men? The special on proto-charging? I'm sort of figuring in stuff like Peter's whole antics in Dana's apartment, not really knowing what's going on or what he's doing and acting like he's actually doing something. Peter and his ESP testing* at the school. Even their TV commercial thing could sort of have a 1-900 fake psychic hotline vibe to it to the uninitiated. (*Iffy, I guess. I'm sure he could flip around and defend his whole thing as, "Well, I NEED to lie and provide negative reinforcement to get accurate results to see if my theory is correct!")
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:If you don't actually pay attention to the characters at all, that might kinda be true Yes, but I'm talking about how the characters are perceived by kids, on account of Ghostbusters ostensibly being a family film, which will be lost if this new one is going for a darker/gorier tone. I'm aware of everything else you said, having written it in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
echoplex posted:Yes, but I'm talking about how the characters are perceived by kids, on account of Ghostbusters ostensibly being a family film, which will be lost if this new one is going for a darker/gorier tone. I'm aware of everything else you said, having written it in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:That's the second time you've mentioned that. I admit I haven't been following the new movie all that closely other than "Reboot with all female cast", but is there any indication the new movie will go the route of "darker/gorier"? For some reason, our homeboy Paul Feig wants this version of Ghostbusters to be scary. He's mentioned it in a few interviews when he got the gig, but now we also have his claim that he was inspired by the Walking Dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Scroto Baggins posted:For some reason, our homeboy Paul Feig wants this version of Ghostbusters to be scary. He's mentioned it in a few interviews when he got the gig, but now we also have his claim that he was inspired by the Walking Dead. I do hope that if they do this, that was always the plan, and it's not to attract people who might otherwise be turned off by the female cast. Urgh, from that article: quote:While the original Ghostbusters is considered a modern comedy classic, given its paranormal subject, the movie's actual scares leave a lot to be desired.  echoplex fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Scroto Baggins posted:we also have his claim that he was inspired by the Walking Dead. Oh so this movie being a piece of poo poo will be intentional. Good to know
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Why can't films be fun?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Ah, sorry, I completely forgot about Peter's con at the beginning, that's fair. I guess my question about why they'd be thought of as con men (by the viewer) is because they actually ARE catching and trapping ghosts; they aren't bozos who conveniently show up to deal with problem with a fake electronic light show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
A Ghostbusters film should be "scary" in the sense that the designs need to be capable of scaring a 6-8 year old kid, but obviously still goofy enough to fit the overall tone of the movie. I'd probably show the designs to actual kids and see how they react, because its a very fine line that the original film walks perfectly. As a kid one thing that the movie did really well is make it clear that the stakes were incredibly high, that Gozer returning would be the end of the world. I suppose its not easy to get that idea across to an 8 year old in the context of demi-gods and ancient Sumeria, but the movie succeeded in getting it across to me and it lent a lot of weight to what was happening on-screen. A kid watching Ghostbusters needed the Venkman character and all the jokes, because as the movie goes on youre getting more and more scared of what may happen and you need relief. I'm not a filmmaker but that just seems like an incredibly tough thing to recreate, its probably lighting in a bottle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Ah, sorry, I completely forgot about Peter's con at the beginning, that's fair. I guess my question about why they'd be thought of as con men (by the viewer) is because they actually ARE catching and trapping ghosts; they aren't bozos who conveniently show up to deal with problem with a fake electronic light show. They aren't doing a fake electronic light show, but they are bozos. Peter has no clue what the hell he's doing at Dana's apartment or when he's talking to her about Gozer, the three of them are completely clueless during the hotel bust, and eventually they stumble rear end-backwards into saving the world after conjuring a hundred-foot marshmallow man that is the avatar of an inter-dimensional demigod.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
My six year old rear end was terrified of several scares in both movies. Even now I find babysitter Janosh and arms-from-chair pretty hosed up. ^^^ I agree with the lightning in a bottle comment. God the first movie was so well balanced. Just serious enough, just humorous enough, well paced... I'm not expecting much from a new Ghostbusters movie, but I just kinda hope when it lets me down its in a "well that was amusing but I never need to see it again" way and not "god what a stupid waste of time" way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm not expecting much from a new Ghostbusters movie, but I just kinda hope when it lets me down its in a "well that was amusing but I never need to see it again" way and not "god what a stupid waste of time" way. Basically lets hope its Robocop, not TMNT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
The bathtub trying to eat the baby really freaked me out when I was a child, and the designs of the random background ghosts themselves were sufficiently gruesome. Ghosts only communicating in tortured fits of screaming doesn't really hurt anything either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I had recurring nightmares about that library ghost as a kid. There was also plenty of hands in front of the eyes for flashlight eyes and spooky nanny arm, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Out of all of the problems I might have with GB2, Ghost 'Nanosz' is perhaps the biggest. I may have mentioned it here before, but I feel that it would have been WAY more effective for him to show up to Dana's apartment to the surprise of Dana, Louis, and Janine, not speaking, and all of a sudden does the blue-energy-mouth-paralyzing move that Vigo does to the guys later on. While they're on the ground, he calmly walks to the room and takes Oscar away. Maybe that'd be too dark, but holy poo poo, it would have terrified me. Then again, I have an infant son now, and that shot of Oscar on the edge of the building is holy-poo poo scary. EDIT: I mean... think about it... Janosz/Vigo somehow manifested a ghost that for one reason or another took the form of a nanny, but with Janosz' face? Why? It's pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:
I can't really give you a satisfying explanation but the ghost-nanny Janosz is creepy as gently caress. The way his arm just extends out and grabs Oscar is very offputting and he has a poo poo-eating grin on his face the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I can't really give you a satisfying explanation but the ghost-nanny Janosz is creepy as gently caress. The way his arm just extends out and grabs Oscar is very offputting and he has a poo poo-eating grin on his face the whole time. And he's in an old nanny wig and a dress, pushing a ghost carriage. I mean, I'm with you on your points, but unfortunately the rest just takes it all away for me. poo poo like Janosz walking down Dana's hallway with ghost-eyes is way more effective. I would have loved more stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:And he's in an old nanny wig and a dress, pushing a ghost carriage. I mean, I'm with you on your points, but unfortunately the rest just takes it all away for me. Eh, you're looking for some weird level of consistency. Why pull the stroller to the street in the first place? Why make the baby walk out to the ledge before coming in the guise of a nanny? It's sort of like the discussion between Dr. Evil and Scott Evil, "Why can't we just put a bullet in their brain now?" Seems like the ghosts kinda rely on inefficient spookiness instead of just up front force to get what they want. It's a cop out, but the answer is entertainment value. And in my mind it works, because like we all seem to be agreeing on, nanosh is loving creepy on multiple levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Pander posted:Eh, you're looking for some weird level of consistency. Why pull the stroller to the street in the first place? Why make the baby walk out to the ledge before coming in the guise of a nanny? It's sort of like the discussion between Dr. Evil and Scott Evil, "Why can't we just put a bullet in their brain now?" Seems like the ghosts kinda rely on inefficient spookiness instead of just up front force to get what they want. Fair enough, and I do get how my argument is coming across. There can be arguments made about a LOT of things over both films. I guess this is that one thing that I have to wonder about. Everything else kind of makes more sense than this, within the GB universe. Also, I liked this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxCmGnU7VkA
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:And he's in an old nanny wig and a dress, pushing a ghost carriage. I mean, I'm with you on your points, but unfortunately the rest just takes it all away for me. The nanny wig and dress just makes it all the more creepy but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The eye-lights in the dark hallway is the best bit in the whole movie though, I'll give you that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
For me, the Ghost Janosz thing works so well because at first you're not expecting it. It's ludicrous. He's flying around like Mary Poppins, dressed in drag, it's pretty funny. And then out of nowhere his eyes turn red and a giant fuckoff nightmare hand shoots out. It's disarming, especially to an impressionable youth. Still, yeah, once you think about it, it makes no sense. Did he turn into a temporary ghost? Is it a ghost doppelganger?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:For me, the Ghost Janosz thing works so well because at first you're not expecting it. It's ludicrous. He's flying around like Mary Poppins, dressed in drag, it's pretty funny. And then out of nowhere his eyes turn red and a giant fuckoff nightmare hand shoots out. It's disarming, especially to an impressionable youth. My main issue isn't with the actual manifestation, just the presentation, from Janosz's perspective. "Obviously, I should dress like a nanny!".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:My main issue isn't with the actual manifestation, just the presentation, from Janosz's perspective. "Obviously, I should dress like a nanny!". He's dressed like a nanny because he's basically acting as a nanny to reincarnated Vigo. Just think of it as his true intentions manifesting themselves as a ghost or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:He's dressed like a nanny because he's basically acting as a nanny to reincarnated Vigo. Just think of it as his true intentions manifesting themselves as a ghost or something. Yeah, I guess. But I mean, I'm well-aware that it's also silly for Vigo to be a painting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Yeah, I guess. But I mean, I'm well-aware that it's also silly for Vigo to be a painting. Yeah, but you're also totally correct for thinking the Nanny Ghost is dumb nonsense, which feels left in from a previous rewrite or some ill guided attempt to make kids laugh at a man dressed as a woman. I've no idea why everyone here is defending it and fan wanking an explanation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:I've no idea why everyone here is defending it and fan wanking an explanation. You don't think the nanny costume has anything to do with the role Janosz is planning to play in the "new world"? He's just randomly dressed as a nanny? That's not fan wanking, that's watching the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Yeah, but you're also totally correct for thinking the Nanny Ghost is dumb nonsense, which feels left in from a previous rewrite or some ill guided attempt to make kids laugh at a man dressed as a woman. quote:At one point, Janosz Poha was not the one to kidnap Oscar. A two headed dragon, creatures from a hellish world, a phantom taxicab, a giant pigeon, a face on the Moon, a vapor rising from the street, billboard figures, gargoyles come to life, and a horrible Santa Claus were pitched. [4] quote:For the scene when Janosz kidnaps Oscar, Peter MacNicol was dressed in drag and photographed in front of a bluescreen. The arm stretch was achieved through a piece of tubing covered with costume fabric and rigged to slide down a pole. For the wider shots, a miniature rod puppet and buggy were photographed in front of a bluescreen and manipulated by character performers Bob Cooper and David Allen. [3] I'm not saying it's logical, I'm just saying it's pretty drat effectively creepy. The whole setup is great. It's just Dana, Louis, and Janine, so no ghostbusters to protect them. It's dark. Thunderstorm comes out of nowhere. Baby on a ledge. The clouds are low and tinted, giving the entire external scene a hellish and constrained appearance. Janosz appears, with the camera motion giving him and the carriage some kind of sickly odd motion. Eyes flash red, a mad cackle. The giant arm outstretches to steal a mother's baby. The scene plays off so many phobias, and you're never quite sure how funny or terrifying it's supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
I thought he dressed like a nanny to make the baby want to go with him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
He's dressed as a nanny because it's the kinda dumb thing that he'd come up with AND it's loving creepy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Y'all are looking at the wrong character. The actual question is why Dana's 'negative thoughts' are being manifested as killer bathtubs, child-stealing nannies, and things of that sort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Y'all are looking at the wrong character. Why would Dana's negative thoughts create a person of flesh and blood from the upper vest side?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:Why would Dana's negative thoughts create a person of flesh and blood from the upper vest side? It's New York City, Dana's actually probably just super racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Yanosh is a dude working for Vigo, drawing upon the same well of power as him (people's negative psychic energy). He personally kidnapped Oscar to make sure it was done right. It's not that complicated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:It's New York City, Dana's actually probably just super racist. Well, poo poo. That's probably it right there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Nonwhite people who live in New York: Ernie Hudson, Reginald VelJohnson
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Yanosh is a dude working for Vigo, drawing upon the same well of power as him (people's negative psychic energy). He personally kidnapped Oscar to make sure it was done right. It's not that complicated. Exactly. It brings us back to the fundamental question of Ghostbusters fandom: Since ghosts do not actually exist, what makes the story so powerful and relevant to these legions of nerds? What real-world anxieties do these squishy green blobs stand in for? Or, as Dana says: what is Gozer doing in her icebox? The Sumerian god obviously rose from the prehistoric void to target her for a reason. Is 'icebox' a pun? Of course it is!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Exactly. It brings us back to the fundamental question of Ghostbusters fandom: I think they're stand ins for aliens from outer space, which do exist. Why do you think they cast Weaver in the movie? Jack Gladney posted:Nonwhite people who live in New York: Ernie Hudson, Reginald VelJohnson Everyone in NYC has seen poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
McDowell posted:Yanosh is a dude working for Vigo, drawing upon the same well of power as him (people's negative psychic energy). He personally kidnapped Oscar to make sure it was done right. It's not that complicated. If you read what we we wrote (or what I wrote, specifically) I only have an issues with the nanny costume and carriage. It just seemed silly even in context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 22:38
|
|