|
King Vidiot posted:It's at least proving that all that horrible cringeworthy poo poo from the leak is probably all true. It's not, his cameo and line leaked out the day after the scene was shot.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Google Translate posted:The actor is in fact shown on board a taxi and declares: " I am not afraid of ghosts ." 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Is there anything particularly bad about that cameo though? It's quick and cute. IDK. What would the angry Ghostbuster fandudes have preferred instead? Akroyd playing a homeless guy or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Retarded_Clown_ posted:Is there anything particularly bad about that cameo though? It's quick and cute. IDK. What would the angry Ghostbuster fandudes have preferred instead? Akroyd playing a homeless guy or something? It's kind of cringe-worthy. It'd be like if Harrison Ford said "I'm so tired of these Star Wars" in TFA
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:It's kind of cringe-worthy. It'd be like if Harrison Ford said "I'm so tired of these Star Wars" in TFA They really should've given Matt Walsh a cameo in TFA
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Retarded_Clown_ posted:Is there anything particularly bad about that cameo though? It's quick and cute. IDK. What would the angry Ghostbuster fandudes have preferred instead? Akroyd playing a homeless guy or something? It's bad because it's a cameo. Cameos, "subtle" wink/nudge to the audience, callbacks to different movies/franchises, etc etc, are all universally terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
I dig the Stan Lee cameos
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Retarded_Clown_ posted:Is there anything particularly bad about that cameo though? It's quick and cute. IDK. What would the angry Ghostbuster fandudes have preferred instead? Akroyd playing a homeless guy or something? Him and Murray reprising their bum roles would actually be kind of funny. Hell, even have him working at an occult book store.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Gotta wonder if there would be slightly less backlash against this film if they had included a scene of Janine giving the new Ghostbusters a license for a Ghostbusters franchise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
That would make it a sequel which would require script approval from Bill Murray.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Pander posted:Walter Peck wasn't even the right governmental response to what they were doing. "Unlicensed nuclear accelerator" suggests DoE and DoD involvement. While my own education has been on current laws, since they apply to current proceedings, I'm sure that even in 1984 the EPA would have had pretty broad authority and would probably react before either of those agencies. They're allowed to be preemptive. Any reasonable suspicion of hazardous waste storage would have allowed an inspection, since clearly the 'busters hadn't filed a permit. Particularly if this agency is operating out of a location with a potentially high risk to the public. And the while the actual accelerators* might have fallen under DoE (more likely OSHA) regs, any radioactive byproducts* or toxic coolants or whatever mysterious unregistered thing is installed in the basement would absolutely be EPA business. Mr Peck is not only within his rights, but mandated by his duty to the public to investigate the so-called ghostbusting process and make sure it is reasonably safe. DoD was supposed to be involved via Zeddemore as an ex-army spook * I think some people in this thread have no idea what a nuclear accelerator is. It accelerates nuclei. Just because it is a "nuclear accelerator" doesn't mean that there's any radioactivity. A small cyclotron is just two disc-shaped electromagnets, typically used to accelerate protons to near-light speeds, and might reasonably resemble the "proton packs" that the ghostbusters wear. Though it is also called a "positron glider" in one scene, and who the gently caress knows what kind of damage you can do with antimatter beams interacting with the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Speleothing posted:Though it is also called a "positron glider" in one scene, Positron collider 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Retarded_Clown_ posted:Is there anything particularly bad about that cameo though? It's quick and cute. IDK. What would the angry Ghostbuster fandudes have preferred instead? Akroyd playing a homeless guy or something? Just have them play themselves and do a passing of the torch as it where, just got all the way with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Alteisen posted:Just have them play themselves and do a passing of the torch as it where, just got all the way with it. They couldn't do that, legally. Assuming you mean having them play the original characters. Timby fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:It's bad because it's a cameo. "Universally terrible" huh It's incredible how absolutely little benefit of the doubt this new film has considering this is a thread full of ostensible ghostbusters fans and it is a new ghostbuster film "I love Ghostbusers! I have all the legos and can quote the whole movie!! it defined my childhood!" "oh cool! you going to see the newest one?" "gently caress NO that poo poo sucks!" "oh i heard dan akryoyd liked it and is even doing a cameo" "A CAMEO?! what a load of poo poo cameos are awful"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:"Universally terrible" huh To be honest, I think it's good that people aren't just blindly buying the latest thing that has a recognizable name
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:It's incredible how absolutely little benefit of the doubt this new film has considering this is a thread full of ostensible ghostbusters fans and it is a new ghostbuster film It's a real "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation for filmmakers. Audiences are practically refusing to take a chance on anything that isn't comfortably familiar (just take a look at the ridiculous number of adaptations/remakes/reboots/sequels that dominated the box office in any given year this century) but movie budgets are so big these days that the studios need to attract the wider general audience and can't rely on the diehard fans to buy enough tickets to recoup their investment, let alone make any profit. Plus there's the nostalgia factor which puts the original film/cartoon/comic wayyyy up on a pedestal so that any new adaptation hardly has a chance to live up to the expectations of the fans, plus there's always going to be an incredibly loud subgroup of fans who will hijack the discussion regardless of what happens. The online discussion is always going to be skewed one way or the other depending on whether the loudest pre-existing fans feel that they are being "catered to" or not. There's no real way of telling how the millions and millions of people in the wider general audience who didn't have any pre-conceived notions on Ghostbusters reacted to the trailers or whether they're interested in seeing the movie because those people generally don't take part in these discussions. The studio will hold a bunch of test audience screenings and measure the responses from that and they'll no doubt alter the film accordingly but they generally don't release those findings. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:To be honest, I think it's good that people aren't just blindly buying the latest thing that has a recognizable name I'm not much of a fan, I liked the first movie well enough but the only real media I've been taking part of connected to the franchise was a few episodes of the cartoon and the NES games. Which I thought kinda sucked. I still absolutely loathe everything I've seen so far of the trailers and the story that's leaked. I don't think my childhood is being messed with or anything, because again I liked the first movie but I never loved it. The reason I loathe the trailer and the idea of the movie is because it seems like a badly cut mess which isn't using a bunch of good actors in ways that play to their strengths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:"Universally terrible" huh Lower your standards. Swallow your pride. And enjoy Corporate Product.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:Lower your standards. Could this poo poo be probatable? No one was saying this for The Force Awakens and it was a hell of a safe corporate product.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:As presented on the screen, Venkman is an absurd rear end in a top hat to him over completely reasonable demands, and it's because he's from the government. Wow, Ghostbusters really does capture the core essence of modern Libertarians. In all seriousness, it is funny how Venkman remains one of "the good guys" to the audience despite the fact that he is, in fact, a manipulative sociopath. Time to rewatch! What's the best high-def edition, or are they all terrible?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Wow, Ghostbusters really does capture the core essence of modern Libertarians. The new blu-ray set with both movies looks good to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
How bad does the devil dog look on the blu-ray? Because I remember it being pretty bad on the DVD with the picture cleaned up, but maybe they fixed the compositing on the blu-ray digitally or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Could this poo poo be probatable? No one was saying this for The Force Awakens and it was a hell of a safe corporate product. It was also good, and looked promising from the beginning (no George, original characters returning, lots of practical effects over CGI, positive reactions to the trailers)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:It was also good, and looked promising from the beginning (no George, original characters returning, lots of practical effects over CGI, positive reactions to the trailers) The Force Awakens is just as, if not more, of a corporate product that this Ghostbusters reboot. It's trailers and campaign were manufactured to be as safe as possible. The nerd propoganda stressed practical effects over CGI, falsely proclaiming "it's different this time!," yet, the reviled Prequels used more practical effects over the OT. There is nothing wrong with this new Ghostbusters telling the same story again. Repeating stories isn't corporate laziness, it's human nature. The movie isn't out yet, so I'm saying that it's good or bad yet. I'm saying that boycotting it over being a "corporate product" is horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with a corporate product, a lot of the things I enjoy are corporate products. But defending a carefully-marketed product that looks really bad is kind of dumb, and the only people that benefit from watching a bad movie sight-unseen without waiting for word of mouth is the studio that produced it. A lot of people are making GBS threads on Suicide Squad still, and I don't see anybody jumping in to defend that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Suicide Squad looks great, and many other people believe it looks great. The second trailer with Ballroom Blitz changed many people's minds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:The movie isn't out yet, so I'm saying that it's good or bad yet. I'm saying that boycotting it over being a "corporate product" is horseshit. It's a $154 million film, there's absolutely zero way it could have been made without corporate backing. And the same is true of the 1984 original. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:It's a $154 million film, there's absolutely zero way it could have been made without corporate backing. Precisely. And since corporations are now legally people, Ghostbusters 2016 is a personal project.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:The nerd propoganda stressed practical effects over CGI, falsely proclaiming "it's different this time!," yet, the reviled Prequels used more practical effects over the OT. This is a disingenuous as hell argument. One of the reasons people hated the prequels was the overuse of CGI, and bad CGI at that. Saying there were "more practical effects" than the OT is a cop out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Apparently the original idea for Ghostbusters as envisaged by Aykroyd would have been so incredibly expensive to produce that it was completely unfilmable anyway
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Apparently the original idea for Ghostbusters as envisaged by Aykroyd would have been so incredibly expensive to produce that it was completely unfilmable anyway Space! Aliens! Multiple franchises of Ghost Smashers! Probably wouldn't have been that good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Space! Aliens! Multiple franchises of Ghost Smashers! Thinking about it now, I kinda wish Ghostbusters 2016 had "returned to the source" and incorporated a bunch of that stuff. Maybe in the sequel??
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is a disingenuous as hell argument. One of the reasons people hated the prequels was the overuse of CGI, and bad CGI at that. Saying there were "more practical effects" than the OT is a cop out. Hey yea, lets have this argument again, except this time in the Ghostbusters thread!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is a disingenuous as hell argument. One of the reasons people hated the prequels was the overuse of CGI, and bad CGI at that. Saying there were "more practical effects" than the OT is a cop out. This isn't the Star Wars thread, so I'll keep this short. Those are reasons people hated the prequels, but they're unkind reasons. Many of the CGI techniques were being pioneered and today's CGI would not have been possible without people learning how to use them first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:"Universally terrible" huh So much This right here. What the hell is so wrong with a cute little moment where Akroyd shows up and says the catchphrase of the first movie? I mean, lets be honest here. The angry Ghostbros keep harping on about "torch passing". What would make them shut up? A literal scene where Dan Akroyd literally hands a lit torch to someone? I mean, really. I just don't see the hubub about the cameos. I think they're cute. Sidenote: Less than a month left to go! I am so excited to finally see this! July needs to hurry up and get here already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Strangely, people only rebel against the "corporate product" when it's something that doesn't appeal to white men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Retarded_Clown_ posted:So much This right here. It was delivered with the force and gusto of a wet fart. There's nothing "wrong" with it per se, but compare and contrast it to the Marvel Stan Lee cameos, which usually are at least funny. computer parts posted:Strangely, people only rebel against the "corporate product" when it's something that doesn't appeal to white men. This is dumb, there's plenty of poo poo movies that appeal to white men that get correctly poo poo upon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is dumb, there's plenty of poo poo movies that appeal to white men that get correctly poo poo upon. We're not talking about Monster Truck or your latest MST3K creation though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
King Vidiot posted:Lower your standards. This is nerd ideology at its purest. Suddenly you are this hardcore anticapitalist, but only where it concerns immersion into escapist media from your nonexistent childhood. The message: "please, you can take anything. Anything at all. Just not my Ghostbusters." And we're talking a series so crassly commercial that its theme song is a jingle. I guess you'll be boycotting all future Sony products - so no Spiderman for you, you fraud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:14
|
|
