|
Is there a clickbait site that pays just foe coming up with headlines, because right now I think you could strike gold with "Wayne's World to reboot with female cast?"
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
There is definitely a layer of the film that is about gender, but if you made all the female characters male it's really clearly a movie about how people who are part of the system are bad and incompetent, and the weirdo outsiders who are not beholden to the system are the ones who know what's happening. There's no misandry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Apart from the first sentence being objectively wrong, haha you think misandry is a thing. haha you think a real, serious issue is nonexistent Binary Logic posted:The food delivery guy is a moron. (Why she keeps ordering from the same place that she doesn't like, I don't understand). no no you see it's a reference to a movie or some other excuse 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Weaver was not doing the action star bit in either Ghostbusters movie. She gave a good performance but Dana is a fairly passive character. Seriously. Janine exists to be snarky and flirt with Egon, and Dana spends the third act as a sex kitten.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:What I don't understand is how anyone can watch this movie and not see it as a vehicle for man-hating. I mean there isn't even one typical romantic or relationship subplot that one would expect (eg between Erin and Kevin), because that would have taken some of the sting out of the anti-male subtext of this story. But in the movie all of the female characters are pretty much weirdo's and crazy people as well.. That attempt to reason with Rowan by the ghostbusters by comparing their situations in life wasn't far off the mark. The mayor's assistant is atleast as big of an rear end in a top hat as he is. Holtzmann's former instructor is just as crazy as she is. In that Red Letter Media review (which I'm assuming you've watched a few times as you're arguing along the exact same lines as them) they complain that the female lead's don't portray realistic scientists - they act in stupid and inexplicable ways when confronted with the ghosts and are constantly wise cracking to eachother in an unprofessional manner around other people. I think there's just an overall goofy tone to the movie where there are very few "real" people in the movie. It's basically what we get from comedies these days, movies like the Hangover trilogy derive mostly all of their comedy from people acting in unexpected and unrealistic ways given their position in life. Out of curiosity, were you on the same train as the MRA people with regard to the Mad Max Fury Road movie? I think the argument for that movie being anti men (the only "good" men in the movie are completely subservient to women, every other male character is evil!) actually made more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Starsfan posted:Out of curiosity, were you on the same train as the MRA people with regard to the Mad Max Fury Road movie? I think the argument for that movie being anti men (the only "good" men in the movie are completely subservient to women, every other male character is evil!) actually made more sense. I think this is a very relevant comparison. I don't think Fury Road was "anti-men", but it was definitely much closer to Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters has negative portrayals of male characters but doesn't really negatively portray maleness per se; everyone's character flaws are largely incidental to their gender. For that matter, Kevin gets singled out a lot as an example of misandry but this misses the point altogether: Kevin is not a negative male stereotype, he is a gender-flipped negative female stereotype. No one watches Christ Hemsworth and goes "ho ho, look at his vain obsession with looks, how very like a man to fill their head with fashion and personal care!" Fury Road, by contrast, actually posed a serious critique of masculinity (although there is still a difference between critiquing something and being against it.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Starsfan posted:But in the movie all of the female characters are pretty much weirdo's and crazy people as well.. That attempt to reason with Rowan by the ghostbusters by comparing their situations in life wasn't far off the mark. The mayor's assistant is atleast as big of an rear end in a top hat as he is. Holtzmann's former instructor is just as crazy as she is. In that Red Letter Media review (which I'm assuming you've watched a few times as you're arguing along the exact same lines as them) they complain that the female lead's don't portray realistic scientists - they act in stupid and inexplicable ways when confronted with the ghosts and are constantly wise cracking to eachother in an unprofessional manner around other people. I think there's just an overall goofy tone to the movie where there are very few "real" people in the movie. It's basically what we get from comedies these days, movies like the Hangover trilogy derive mostly all of their comedy from people acting in unexpected and unrealistic ways given their position in life. Yeah this is what I was going to say. Everyone is over the top, the non-GB females are all pretty wacky and so are the men. There are only a few specific men who go out of their way to directly antagonize the GB in an unfair way (Rowan, the mayor kinda [and again this is mostly done through his female aid], the other college dean who isn't Charles Dance) and Kevin is a comical idiot. Most of the men who call the GB for help are silly but not unreasonable or portrayed negatively. I'm just not seeing this antagonistic anti-male anti-"core audience" (which let's face it is code for the white male TRUE FANS) message the movie supposedly has.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Why are Box Office Mojo predicting an extra $20 million this weekend? Star Trek Beyond is just right around the corner, it didn't even peak at #1 when it first showed up. I'm looking at $10-15 million at best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:Why are Box Office Mojo predicting an extra $20 million this weekend? Star Trek Beyond is just right around the corner, it didn't even peak at #1 when it first showed up. I'm looking at $10-15 million at best. I dunno? Breitbart is reporting 6 mil on Friday and estimating 21 million for the entire weekend, a drop of 55%. Where are you getting your numbers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I dunno? Breitbart is reporting 6 mil on Friday and estimating 21 million for the entire weekend, a drop of 55%. Where are you getting your numbers? http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=ghostbusters2016.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I dunno? Breitbart is reporting 6 mil on Friday and estimating 21 million for the entire weekend, a drop of 55%. Where are you getting your numbers? Why would you get any news whatsoever from Breitbart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Why would you get any news whatsoever from Breitbart. Haha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Yeah this is what I was going to say. Everyone is over the top, the non-GB females are all pretty wacky and so are the men. There are only a few specific men who go out of their way to directly antagonize the GB in an unfair way (Rowan, the mayor kinda [and again this is mostly done through his female aid], the other college dean who isn't Charles Dance) and Kevin is a comical idiot. Most of the men who call the GB for help are silly but not unreasonable or portrayed negatively. Actually I think the actions of both deans are perfectly reasonable and reflective of how the real world academia would react to people professing a belief in the paranormal. Charles Dance was protecting the reputation of the Department of Physics of Columbia University, which is his job as president of that institution. Certainly you can't blame the 2nd Dean from booting the ghostbusters out of that community college when they were requesting a bunch of money for what is typically understood as bunk science. Then our hero's (which the movie remember portrays in only a positive light because they aren't men) steal a bunch of equipment from the school haha. Starsfan fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Why would you get any news whatsoever from Breitbart. Lol it just happened to be the first google search that popped up the box office numbers. Yeah I meant where are you getting the 10-15 million.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Lol it just happened to be the first google search that popped up the box office numbers. No I meant I'm thinking 10-15 million, I haven't found any box office numbers predicting that amount, but I don't think it's going to reach that target.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:No I meant I'm thinking 10-15 million, I haven't found any box office numbers predicting that amount, but I don't think it's going to reach that target. Ah okay, I figured the reported friday take was accurate at this point and the rest was predicted from there based on past trends. I see that the Friday amount is still an estimate though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Lol it just happened to be the first google search that popped up the box office numbers. Yeah, seemed out of character. Look before you leap, man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:10 minutes in, and the first joke in the movie is a pussy fart gag. The whole movie had a strange tone: the women vs men misandry (every male in the movie is a negative character) pulled it down and the lack of any romantic subplot or relationship imperative made it feel like a live action cartoon. Though I like the added detail of "Well these MAN HATERS suck I mean c'mon they didn't even WANT any COCK!" quote:I had the same feeling after watching and while walking out, questioned if it was the most expensive SNL skit ever produced. Are people really upset about the nutshot at the end? I'm expecting an ineffectual aim at his arms or something and then instead we get the shot, followed by the joke. Of course that's where you'd aim. FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:Charles Dance is an overbearing and insulting to Wiig's character. Who were the great male people in the first 2? Moranis was a frightened goof, rear end in a top hat EPA moron, condescending rear end in a top hat mayor, creepy weirdo loner artist, Vigo, angry college student, rear end in a top hat tightwad hotelier, rear end in a top hat judge. Also at the end Venkman says grab your stick and make it hard so we can show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown, to save his love interest who was turned into a literal bitch, but then gozer goes all gelatinous and it's awesome
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Late great Rich Evans has made a convincing point that the villain of the movie is a mean spirited Ghostbusters fan caricature. I think lots of people take this perception (legitimate, imo) that the movie is quite needlessly hostile towards this pre-dominantly male demographics of nerds / geeks / whatever, and then they try to build a mistaken "misandry" narrative out of this substrate when instead it's just vitriol aimed at lots of the things the original film embodied, and became associated with through cultural osmosis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Perhaps the biggest clue that the movie thinks men are bumbling incompetents is the character of Paul Feig, and his trademark inability to stick the camera anywhere that a person with eyes might find interesting
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:a mean spirited Ghostbusters fan caricature. The villain seems like the sort of guy where if you find yourself identifying with it's a problem on you not a problem on the choice of the villain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The villain seems like the sort of guy where if you find yourself identifying with it's a problem on you not a problem on the choice of the villain. he means the ghostbuster symbol that mccarthy blasts in the dick, i think?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:10 minutes in, and the first joke in the movie is a pussy fart gag. The whole movie had a strange tone: the women vs men misandry (every male in the movie is a negative character) pulled it down and the lack of any romantic subplot or relationship imperative made it feel like a live action cartoon. The original movie did feel like a live action cartoon, especially with the practical effects of slimer, stay puft, the animation on the proton streams, and how raspy and creepy gozer was. I suppose the remake was trying to capture that same effect but it was going way too far with it, and I guess they were catering it to kids almost with the wacky characters, the action scenes, and the CGI effects. Also the fact that they wrote every male character to be as unlikeable as possible made the story feel really one-dimensional. I do feel a GB reboot could've been executed better, but this one left a lot to be desired. FilthyImp posted:Dude, don't blue-ball me. If you're going to pull random quotes from /reddit at least have the decency to cite the thread. jesus christ Junior Jr. fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
FunkyAl posted:Perhaps the biggest clue that the movie thinks men are bumbling incompetents is the character of Paul Feig, and his trademark inability to stick the camera anywhere that a person with eyes might find interesting  good job son
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Late great Rich Evans Wait, is he dead? BillmasterCozb posted:he means the ghostbuster symbol that mccarthy blasts in the dick, i think? This is a stretch since, again, this is the team's symbol at that point in the movie, it is plastered all over their outfits and car. We see him drawing their logo when he sees on TV but then he starts drawing it more evil looking to twist their logo into something scary. I don't see how this string of events ties in any way to attacking the "core demographic".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Are people really upset about the nutshot at the end? I'm expecting an ineffectual aim at his arms or something and then instead we get the shot, followed by the joke. Of course that's where you'd aim. No you see you're the real sexist for assuming the ghost is male. Paul Feig is actually a misogynist monster for his depiction of sexual violence against a lady ghost vagina.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Has anybody considered the possibility that Bill Murray looks like he's always phoning things in and looks uninterested all the time is is because maybe that's just the way he is now? I swear if he's not blowing audiences away he's looking uninterested or looks like he would rather be anywhere than in whatever movie he's in. This is not a flaw in the movie. Stop bringing it up, people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:Has anybody considered the possibility that Bill Murray looks like he's always phoning things in and looks uninterested all the time is is because maybe that's just the way he is now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
You know what this movie did better than the original? The ecto-1. This movie establishes it a lot while in the first movie it exists only because it was the 80s and everyone drove a them-mobile and even doctor who drove a car with question marks on it. Also a funeral car makes more sense than an ambulance which is a weird double out of place thing in the first movie from it's weird vestigial themes. Like it's great and gives us the most memorable iconography of the first movie but the first movie was a mess about their profession. Like they were so clearly fantastical exterminators but so much of the imagery is just randomly that they live in a fire house and slide down a pole when the alarm goes off then shoot fantasy fire hoses at stuff in buildings. And then drive an ambulance which is like a fire truck but an extra level of muddled symbology. The original ecto-1 feels like it fell out of multiple rewrites of the movie but it's okay because it came out so perfectly iconic and popular. The new movie actually bothers to establish it in the world of the actual movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
I've only seen the original in bits here and there but I believe Jane, the secretary or whatever, was a huge ditz/bimbo who was really stupid. That's why Feig and Dippold are such geniuses, they flipped the script and made her character a dumb himbo instead.Owlofcreamcheese posted:You know what this movie did better than the original? The ecto-1. This movie establishes it a lot while in the first movie it exists only because it was the 80s and everyone drove a them-mobile and even doctor who drove a car with question marks on it. Also a funeral car makes more sense than an ambulance which is a weird double out of place thing in the first movie from it's weird vestigial themes. Like it's great and gives us the most memorable iconography of the first movie but the first movie was a mess about their profession. Like they were so clearly fantastical exterminators but so much of the imagery is just randomly that they live in a fire house and slide down a pole when the alarm goes off then shoot fantasy fire hoses at stuff in buildings. And then drive an ambulance which is like a fire truck but an extra level of muddled symbology. The original ecto-1 feels like it fell out of multiple rewrites of the movie but it's okay because it came out so perfectly iconic and popular. The new movie actually bothers to establish it in the world of the actual movie. Agreed, plus the "it's a cadillac!" exchange is a funnier scene than the entitety of the original film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Life Aquatic Whoa, I'll have to stop you there. That movie was intentionally absurdist and also amazing. In isolation, his part there was just fine. I know what you mean in general, though. I felt the same way about Harrison Ford for a while, minus maybe Star Wars
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Electromax posted:Who were the great male people in the first 2? Moranis was a frightened goof, rear end in a top hat EPA moron, condescending rear end in a top hat mayor, creepy weirdo loner artist, Vigo, angry college student, rear end in a top hat tightwad hotelier, rear end in a top hat judge. The mayor wasn't really seen as an rear end in a top hat; he was frustrated because he had a random shitstorm out of nowhere with a bunch of adult children bickering. He listened to the available experts (and had a human little moment with greeting the priest), and (with a small election joke) sided with the ghostbusters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Retarded_Clown_ posted:I've only seen the original in bits here and there but I believe Jane, the secretary or whatever, was a huge ditz/bimbo who was really stupid. That's why Feig and Dippold are such geniuses, they flipped the script and made her character a dumb himbo instead. That is absolutely not true at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
FunkyAl posted:Perhaps the biggest clue that the movie thinks men are bumbling incompetents is the character of Paul Feig, and his trademark inability to stick the camera anywhere that a person with eyes might find interesting This post needs more love.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Retarded_Clown_ posted:I've only seen the original in bits here and there but I believe Jane, the secretary or whatever, was a huge ditz/bimbo who was really stupid. That's why Feig and Dippold are such geniuses, they flipped the script and made her character a dumb himbo instead. It would probably be best if you didn't ever post your beliefs on or didn't comment directly on characters in movies you haven't actually sat down and seen. AndyElusive fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You know what this movie did better than the original? The ecto-1. This movie establishes it a lot while in the first movie it exists only because it was the 80s and everyone drove a them-mobile and even doctor who drove a car with question marks on it. Also a funeral car makes more sense than an ambulance which is a weird double out of place thing in the first movie from it's weird vestigial themes. Like it's great and gives us the most memorable iconography of the first movie but the first movie was a mess about their profession. Like they were so clearly fantastical exterminators but so much of the imagery is just randomly that they live in a fire house and slide down a pole when the alarm goes off then shoot fantasy fire hoses at stuff in buildings. And then drive an ambulance which is like a fire truck but an extra level of muddled symbology. The original ecto-1 feels like it fell out of multiple rewrites of the movie but it's okay because it came out so perfectly iconic and popular. The new movie actually bothers to establish it in the world of the actual movie. Okay I do have to correct one thing that you seem to have as a misconception, the original Ecto-1 was also a hearse  The 1959 Cadillac commercial chassis was used as both ambulance AND hearse
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Maybe Ghostbusters 2048 will use one of these bad boys: I think they did a wonderful job with the car and proton packs and all the gadgets in the new movie. They're all great. Much like the '84 proton pack design reflects Egon's clean function-over-form personality, the new gear certainly reflects Holtzmann's wild eccentricity. xezton fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
HJE-Cobra posted:Okay I do have to correct one thing that you seem to have as a misconception, the original Ecto-1 was also a hearse Interesting. I always thought the original was an ambulance instead of a hearse because it symbolized them fighting death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
HJE-Cobra posted:Okay I do have to correct one thing that you seem to have as a misconception, the original Ecto-1 was also a hearse That doesn't really help. It was outfitted as an ambulance and either way it just throws another element into the muddled mix that the original movie struggles with with some of the style being as if they are fantasy firemen and some being as if they are fantasy bug exterminators. I mean it's fine and the movie isn't harmed by the indecision but the ecto-1 in the new movie exists more smoothly in the world than the ecto-1 in the original where it's just sort of a thing they just make because movies in the 80s everyone just had a branded car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 03:08
|
|