|
Was Gung Ho bad? I only ever saw it as a kid.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
Don't forget the myriad Scott Baio vehicles where he was a go-lucky awkward teen aw shucks. Or the teen raunchfests that followed Animal House that couldn't commit to the gross-out so they played it laughably safe. Or the whacky genderswap comedies (Just One of the Guys). There was this weird surge of comedy in the 80s, that later led to the stand-up circuit being a thing in the late 80s/early 90s. That's likely where a lot of this came from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Ah ha ha ha ha, I'd never heard of it myself so I looked it up and someone literally invented it because Pacific Rim failed the Bechdel test (it's three named female characters never talk to each other at all) but they thought it had some merit as a feminist text so they had to think up a new test it could pass. None of the people in this article have any idea what the Bechdel test is a measurement of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:None of the people in this article have any idea what the Bechdel test is a measurement of. Everybody knows that you turn off the lights and chant Bechdel test three times in front of a mirror when you turn the lights on your story is magically progressive, all that's left after that is to bury a piece of paper with the stages of The Heroes Journey written on it at a crossroad at midnight and your story is perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Ah ha ha ha ha, I'd never heard of it myself so I looked it up and someone literally invented it because Pacific Rim failed the Bechdel test (it's three named female characters never talk to each other at all) but they thought it had some merit as a feminist text so they had to think up a new test it could pass. There's just one problem: Mako Mori doesn't pass the Mako Mori test.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
It's almost like all these tests are incredibly retarded and only made up to defend bad movies, for the most part
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
BillmasterCozb posted:It's almost like all these tests are incredibly retarded and only made up to defend bad movies, for the most part that's strange because most of the movies which pass them are considered pretty good.. you know, the movies that have fully developed female characters tend to be good at other things too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Starsfan posted:that's strange because most of the movies which pass them are considered pretty good.. you know, the movies that have fully developed female characters tend to be good at other things too. Ghostbusters passes all the tests and it is very bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
The only test the Ghostbusters reboot passes is the AIDS test... for HIV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:The only test the Ghostbusters reboot passes is the AIDS test... for HIV. They shot that giant ghost in his magic johnson.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
I sometimes open this thread and need a moment to realize this thread isn't in GBS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
BillmasterCozb posted:It's almost like all these tests are incredibly retarded and only made up to defend bad movies, for the most part Bechdel test is interesting as a starting point for analyzing movies, but not useful at all for gauging their quality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Squinty posted:Ghostbusters passes all the tests and it is very bad. yeah, it's like..tests can't determine the quality of a movie 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Starsfan posted:that's strange because most of the movies which pass them are considered pretty good.. you know, the movies that have fully developed female characters tend to be good at other things too. The Bechdel test is meant as a way of viewing the entire industry, it's pointless to use it on individual movies and claim they are good for passing it or bad for not. The point is "Here's an incredibly simple idea of what makes a movie not totally dominated by masculine influences" and something like 80% of movies fail that incredibly simple task, which says something about our culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Someone in the GBS thread was wondering whether GB16 would perform similarly to certain other films and I crunched some numbers and made this discovery:Snowglobe of Doom posted:We're only on day 10 of GB16's run and it's already made $86m domestically, which is 60% of its production budget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Bechdel test is interesting as a starting point for analyzing movies, but not useful at all for gauging their quality. Right. I would even argue it's not even great for analyzing individual movies but more about analyzing trends in filmmaking. The original webcomic joke was "this seems like such a simple criteria but it actually is super rare". Using it to gauge whether a movie is appropriately feminist is asinine though. You could have a movie about a woman alone in the wilderness which fails every single criteria, and a movie about space nymphos that passes several times over because there are several scenes where they spout badly acted pseudo-science. It's more helpful to look at a weekend/month of releases and go "okay, only 1 of these passed the Bechdel test and that is bad, even if the individual movies have good female characters".
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Someone in the GBS thread was wondering whether GB16 would perform similarly to certain other films and I crunched some numbers and made this discovery: Ok but get this: Fury Road was a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
And I think this is where I step out of this thread. On the whole, the most frustrating thing about this thread is that the same people who are making GBS threads on or outright ignoring people who pop in to say that they thought this movie was great, or fun, or progressive are the same people who make statements like 'this movie is bad' and are convinced that this statement is an objective fact rather than their own subjective opinion. This movie is probably not for everyone, but if it isn't for you, why are you trying to get people who have happily stated 'this movie was definitely for me' to agree that it was a bad movie? Why can't you let people who enjoyed it continue to enjoy it without having to rationalize that they only enjoyed it because they don't know what a good movie is, because they've clearly never seen other good movies, because Sony paid them to, because they have a secret feminist agenda, etc.? Why does every movie have to be for you? There are plenty of things from my childhood that I look back on fondly that have had bad remakes, but it's really easy to accept that they're for a new generation and maybe weren't made with me in mind and that while I think they're bad, there are absolutely a new generation of fans being brought in by them. Ninja Turtles comes to mind, here. I loved the old movies, despite their weird practical effects and their bad time travel adventure. Micheal Bay's new turtles strike me as creepily grotesque and completely unwatchable, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of admitting that somehow, somewhere, plenty of someones are really digging it. I'm finding it really hard to read new posts in here without picturing thefaces behind the 'this is a bad movie' posts as small sneering children who have a mini meltdow and jam their fingers in there eye sockets every time someone posts that they liked it. Like, you do you, I guess, but trying to teach an adult about the difference between objectivity and subjectivity is exhausting and pointless. Clearly I don't understand why people get such enjoyment out of hating things, or why some people are incapable of enjoying anything at all. Have fun, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
I saw the movie this past weekend and I enjoyed it, but I think I might enjoy anything that plays that music and has proton streams blasted at ghosts
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Someone in the GBS thread was wondering whether GB16 would perform similarly to certain other films and I crunched some numbers and made this discovery: Yeah, I dont think its going to be getting the word of mouth that Fury Road got. Might as well compare it to Legend of Tarzan domestically since they've had almost identical weekend takes after their release. Tarzan had a larger budget and will be lucky if it can crack 130 mill domestically this summer? Also the actual weekend numbers came out and Ghostbusters is in 5th behind Lights Out and Ice Age: Collision Course with $21,009,831.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
There's some legit criticism being posted here to be sure, but there is also a lot of dismissive GBS style posting too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
HJE-Cobra posted:I saw the movie this past weekend and I enjoyed it, but I think I might enjoy anything that plays that music and has proton streams blasted at ghosts This X 100
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:Ok but get this: Fury Road was a good movie. It also did better internationally, while most of GB's fanbase is US/Canada. Anyone who thinks this will kill off Sony's attempts to revitalize the GB brand is dumb, but this did kill what Pascal/Feig wanted with Ghostbusters and attempts to make it into a live action franchise. Chances are if Sony learned their lessons and is serious, can launch this into a strong animated feature series to get those big Pixar dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:There's some legit criticism being posted here to be sure, but there is also a lot of dismissive GBS style posting too. Yeah the average response seems to be lukewarm on either side, a few people saying they enjoyed it and a few that it was sloppy. I fall on the side of having enjoyed the balance of the film but found the whole thing to be so inconsistent as to dislike the overall package (I would go from laughing to cringing, appreciating a special effect to shaking my head at a cheap one, etc). It seems like most of the people who are really repeatedly dumping on the movie are the people who refused from the beginning to see it, and presumably haven't seen it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
It's done significantly better then the last few 80's reboots already so barring a monumental drop I'd expect at least an attempt at a live action sequel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
SirDan3k posted:It's done significantly better then the last few 80's reboots already so barring a monumental drop I'd expect at least an attempt at a live action sequel. It's not projecting to reach an actual profit, so it doing better than the Thing 2011 or Total Recall (whenever, drat that was a forgettable movie). doesn't actually matter. Ghostbusters isn't dead, but this current iteration is. Sony is desperate though, so who the gently caress knows what they end up doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Finally saw this. Uh, it's a modern Ghostbusters movie with a really different take on comedy. So I guess I liked it, while simultaneously disliking a fair bit about it. I didn't enjoy Chris Hemsworth's character as much as others here. I found him really annoying and he kind of grated on me really early on and I think that mostly came from all the preview material that came out with him in it. This is in contrast to like, Louis Tully who I remember really disliking as a kid, but whom I eventually came around on after he goes through the whole Vinz Clortho possession. I never had that moment with Kevin. The soundtrack completely blows. Could have done without Slimer or Fem-Slimer. Did ANYBODY like Slimer? Ever? Outside of his appearance, capture and escape from the original I have never liked that ghost or his repeated inclusion in everything with the GB branding on it. My girlfriend liked Holtzmann, that's all she really had to say about it because she fell asleep about half way through the movie. And I dug all the cameos, even Murrays which I often hear was the worst. Ernie Hudson and Sigourney Weaver had the best cameos. Also goddamn do both of them look great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Bechdel test is interesting as a starting point for analyzing movies, but not useful at all for gauging their quality. It's bad at even that. It's a good tool to owning and analyzing how lovely Hollywood is, but is a bad parameter for any type of analysis about individual films. The Room passes for fucks sake. EDIT:To put this in context, Fury Road was actually a small flop. It made 300 plus million but was 20 million under it's adverstising budget. The only reason it's getting sequels is because it would have made a small profit had it not been pushed for Oscar season and the fact sequels usually gross more than the first films in a series. Believe it or not if you want to there to be more cool movies like Furiosia to come out...go to the loving theaters because that's going to determines if Mad Max continues or not. NutritiousSnack fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
What the hell dude. In no way was Fury Road a "flop".
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:What the hell dude. In no way was Fury Road a "flop". It lost twenty million. It wasn't profitable...though once again, that was because of an extra marketing push. The existence of future Mad Max properties is going to depend on if the sucess of Mad Max II: Whatever or if Furiosia can make a profit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:There's some legit criticism being posted here to be sure, but there is also a lot of dismissive GBS style posting too. It's difficult to really get into why the movie is bad before the DVD release is out and people can start posting clips and screenshots and stuff. The film's biggest problem is that comedy and horror both rely heavily on timing, and the film has no sense of timing at all. And you can't really talk about timing without clips on hand to refer to. It's hard to say, "remember that scene where the mannequin kicked down the door? Wouldn't it have been scarier and funnier if they left the door shut for an extra beat or three?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:It lost twenty million. It wasn't profitable...though once again, that was because of an extra marketing push. The existence of future Mad Max properties is going to depend on if the sucess of Mad Max II: Whatever or if Furiosia can make a profit. I'm not seeing that listed in any of the usual places. I'm seeing a budget of around $200 million(marketing included), and it made $375 million. How much are you saying was spent on marketing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
shitpostmodern posted:And I think this is where I step out of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Fury Road was not a box office flop. Jem and The Holograms, The Fantastic Four, Jupiter Ascending, Tomorrowland, Pan. Those were 2015 flops. Also, this derail is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:... People who like Slimer grew up with the cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
8one6 posted:People who like Slimer grew up with the cartoon. This. Slimer is a primary character in the Real Ghostbusters who sorta serves the role of pet/comedic screw up companion. He's in every episode far as I can remember. Also Ecto Cooler had his cartoon visage all over it, and I know I drank enough of it to have a positive reaction just by association.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
This film will do just fine financially and a sequel is guaranteed, mark my words. No matter how badly people want this to fail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Slimer drove a bus in the second film and was instrumental in making people think Louis Tully was the true hero of the day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:This film will do just fine financially and a sequel is guaranteed, mark my words. No matter how badly people want this to fail. It's already failed and got the vague "Fantastic Four's sequel in the works totally" treatment though. I don't know what world your living in but failing to make a profit means you don't get a sequel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I'm not seeing that listed in any of the usual places. I'm seeing a budget of around $200 million(marketing included), and it made $375 million. How much are you saying was spent on marketing? Check box office for all Oscar wins by profit not gross. It lost twenty million and was regraded as a disappointment. As to way, it entirely because of the extremely high marketing that came both from trying to get it to succeed and then for it's Oscar campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 02:01
|
|