|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Gilbert's defining character trait is that she's emotionally repressed and only acts out when she's pushed past her limits: the youtube video which gets her fired, screaming at the mayor at the restaurant, releasing the only ghost they ever caught because a skeptic was teasing her, punching the annoying vlogger in the face in the extended cut scene, and jumping into the portal to save Yates at the end of the movie. It's a lovely character but at least it's consistent. Having her tenure thwarted, being denied an opportunity to continue paranormal research with the other Ghostbusters and getting them fired, seeing someone die (x2), almost being killed in the subway, watching her colleague's body being dropped from the second floor balcony, rescuing her friends from death by balloon parade, being fake arrested in front of the press whilst being labeled a fraud, saving her friend from the "other side", listening to Holtzmann's heartfelt speech at the end of the movie... If she was supposed to be emotionally repressed only for it to erupt like a geyser, it didn't seem that way. Perhaps a few lines of dialogue could have mentioned it, or she could have had a character arc where she embraces her emotions. It seemed too inconsistent that she desires validation strongly enough to free the ghost which kills Murray's character, yet didn't fight for her tenure or even attempt to counter the slandering of the mayor's office.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Gilbert's defining character trait is that she's emotionally repressed and only acts out when she's pushed past her limits: the youtube video which gets her fired, screaming at the mayor at the restaurant, releasing the only ghost they ever caught because a skeptic was teasing her, punching the annoying vlogger in the face in the extended cut scene, and jumping into the portal to save Yates at the end of the movie. It's a lovely character but at least it's consistent. That doesn't really make sense though? How does the appearance of a sad old man equate to some sort of big emotional turmoil? The ultimate point, I think, is that the script just needed someone to do that for the sake of killing Murray's character off, and so they randomly picked someone to take the stupid pill. It really has no bearing on the plot at all. They were going to get called to the mayor's office either way. The ghost's release and Murray's death bear no consequences for anyone. That scene is jammed into the movie where there should've been a montage of the team catching ghosts across town a la the original, showing the growing of their business and their notoriety, until eventually they catch the attention of the mayor. In this, they catch one ghost, they kill an old man, and then they go to the office because It's Time to Do That.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Her defining trait isn't solely the repression, it's that she's been basically traumatized by people's disbelief of her ghost encounter and struggles between trying to forget her past and then getting super intense about proving it to people. She ultimately wants to be taken seriously and adjusts her personality based on the situation. So at first (after years of skepticism prior to the start of the film) she's denying everything and trying to shut down the book, but then when they encounter the ghost she realizes she's not crazy and spazzes out in excitement on video. Cut to the dean's office and she knows that the video doesn't prove anything so she's reverted back to her mousey denial persona as a defense mechanism. The Bill Murray scene might seem like an outlier but she has just fought and captured a ghost in front of an auditorium of people, in her mind proving to the world that ghosts are real and she is a legitimate scientist. When Murray shows up and starts mocking her and yelling in her face she wants to shut him up because he's immediately dredging all that past emotion up and ruining her high. Then by the time she gets to the mayor's office she has just killed a guy trying to show off, she let go of their major evidence, and more people (the cops, etc) have disbelieved her, so she has again reverted. So it's not that she's acting inconsistent, there is a very distinct cycle of: she is in denial/hiding her belief in ghosts -> new evidence/proof -> she gets overexcited -> something bad happens -> she reverts What does muddle things up are the lovely ad-libbed scenes, and I mentioned this right after seeing the movie. The key one I remember standing out is when they're talking to the cops after the Murray scene. This scene should have been McCarthy saying stupid crap with Wiig getting exasperated because she wants to be taken seriously by the cops, but instead they're both riffing about Keanu Reeves movies or whatever and it blatantly doesn't fit with her established character. There's probably other scenes like this and I will cop to that, but the Bill Murray scene is not her acting stupid for no reason, it's her getting validation after years of harsh skepticism and then having that stuff immediately right back in her face and her lashing out as a result. I don't agree with Snowglobe about the saving McCarthy thing, I think that was more about their badly mangled friendship plot, which I have also talked about at length in previous posts. I also don't think it has as much to do with being "pushed to her limit", it's more about her personal validation and how she acts to get it (being passive when she doesn't have proof, shoving it in people's faces when she does). Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
But what about how their is no repercussion for the murder of a human being?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Her defining trait isn't solely the repression, it's that she's been basically traumatized by people's disbelief of her ghost encounter and struggles between trying to forget her past and then getting super intense about proving it to people. She ultimately wants to be taken seriously and adjusts her personality based on the situation. You're not allowed to put more thought into a movie than anyone involved with the production of it did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Her defining trait isn't solely the repression, it's that she's been basically traumatized by people's disbelief of her ghost encounter and struggles between trying to forget her past and then getting super intense about proving it to people. She ultimately wants to be taken seriously and adjusts her personality based on the situation. Honestly, even if this was all intentional, it still isn't good writing. If the character was strong and well-written from the get-go, sure, we could go for some insanely complicated cycle of excitement, action, and receding, but the honest truth is the characters are insanely inconsistent. The characters from the original adhere to very clear roles that inform their actions and dialogue throughout the film: Venkman's the sleazy conman. Ray's the naive manchild. Egon's the autistic scientist. Winston's the everyman. So when a character suddenly does something that diverts from that role, there's usually a good reason and it's a notable moment. What the writers should've done is lock each of their characters into a clear archetype and let us get to know them as that kind of character. It's not going to get you into the writer's room for the next Coen Brothers film, but if you're not good at making complex characters (which Feig is not), then be good at making simple ones. Squashing Machine fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Her defining trait isn't solely the repression, it's that she's been basically traumatized by people's disbelief of her ghost encounter and struggles between trying to forget her past and then getting super intense about proving it to people. She ultimately wants to be taken seriously and adjusts her personality based on the situation. Huh, seems like you could draw some parallels between that and a victim of abuse being afraid to come forward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Filthy Casual posted:Huh, seems like you could draw some parallels between that and a victim of abuse being afraid to come forward. Wow, that sure is the express train to Funnytown right there
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Remember when they murder a human being with no repercussion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Remember when they murder a human being with no repercussion? That's okay. According to the movie, the only men worth anyone's time are beautiful airheads. Yas kween.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Honestly, even if this was all intentional, it still isn't good writing. I didn't say it was, although you and rear end Catchcum seem to interpret anything not overtly negative said about the film as some kind of weird challenge to poo poo all over it
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Remember when they murder a human being with no repercussion? In Ghostbusters 1 they threaten to unleash a ghost on a man, douse a crowd with marshmallow napalm, almost nuke Manhattan... Again, this is bog-standard nerd movie stuff, except now women are doing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I didn't say it was, although you and rear end Catchcum seem to interpret anything not overtly negative said about the film as some kind of weird challenge to poo poo all over it Huh? I'm just responding to what you said, you presented an interpretation of how that character's motivation is supposed to work and I said why I thought it didn't work. I don't get how that's weird in the Movies Discussion Forum
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In Ghostbusters 1 they threaten to unleash a ghost on a man, douse a crowd with marshmallow napalm, almost nuke Manhattan... I guess someone could have suffocated under that foam, huh. Again, you're framing any criticism of the movie as woman-hating and it's idiotic, SMG. Nobody in the original Ghostbusters actively contributes to someone getting killed and then acts completely unaffected or nonchalant about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Huh? I'm just responding to what you said, you presented an interpretation of how that character's motivation is supposed to work and I said why I thought it didn't work. I don't get how that's weird in the Movies Discussion Forum You're right that was antagonistic. And I do agree the characters are inconsistent, although I blame the focus on choosing ad libbed takes in editing. I think it was self explanatory why someone who was upset that nobody believed her got upset when another person didn't believe her (and right after her grand moment of vindication) tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Terrific Accident posted:I guess someone could have suffocated under that foam, huh. Again, you're framing any criticism of the movie as woman-hating and it's idiotic, SMG. Nobody in the original Ghostbusters actively contributes to someone getting killed and then acts completely unaffected or nonchalant about it. I am not taking sides in your culture war. I am criticizing the 'revenge of the nerds' genre in general, of which this film is a part. In Real Genius, they blow up a man's house with a military-grade laser and so-on. It's simply part of the genre that the nerds use #fuckyeahscience and trickery to do grievous harm to the stuffy dean, rape the jock's girlfriend, etc. It's the basic power fantasy. Tully gets a chunk of his brain removed, Dana gets "300 cc's of thorazine", and Peck gets doused in molten sugar - without consequences. Ghostbusters 2016 is not different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
When had she been shown as upset that nobody believed her though? When the Haunted House owner turns up, she acts like the book was a prank or she didn't really know about it, only eventually conceding she was an author. She seems to not really believe or give weight to the research she did when she meets up with the other two for the first time, and send to go along just to get her stubborn friend to give in to her request. When she's fired she doesn't really react much. When the other college shuts them down she sits through the ridiculous "middle finger" scene without saying anything. Nothing happens after the first attempt to catch a ghost (in the subway) where she is slimed again. Heck, even when they read the YouTube comments she's not the one that reacts to the negative and disparaging remarks. I can only think of the scene with the Mayor in the restaurant that portrayed her in this light. At no other point in the film does she express in words or in actions her disappointment in not being believed. Even when the Mayor tells them it's true and it's being covered up for public order she just sits there, not even showing that she's relieved someone else than the four members of the team knows ghosts are real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Terrific Accident posted:Again, you're framing any criticism of the movie as woman-hating He's not wrong, though. It's kinda baked in. Shazback posted:When had she been shown as upset that nobody believed her though? They flat-out tell you that she's had a problem with believing stuff nobody else did during the takeout-eating scene. That's why she starts the film with a "ghosts aren't real" mentality. Get beaten down enough, and you'll buy what those beating down on you are saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:He's not wrong, though. It's kinda baked in. And so we're back to the concept that this movie was made in such as way as to render it completely impervious to criticism. Thanks for proving my point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Wow, that sure is the express train to Funnytown right there Word, Blazing Saddles wasn't able to be funny because of its depictions of racism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Filthy Casual posted:Word, Blazing Saddles wasn't able to be funny because of its depictions of racism. Remember how that movie had jokes? And was willing to risk offense to land them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I am not taking sides in your culture war. I am criticizing the 'revenge of the nerds' genre in general, of which this film is a part. In Real Genius, they blow up a man's house with a military-grade laser and so-on. It's simply part of the genre that the nerds use #fuckyeahscience and trickery to do grievous harm to the stuffy dean, rape the jock's girlfriend, etc. It's the basic power fantasy. Tully gets a chunk of his brain removed, Dana gets "300 cc's of thorazine", and Peck gets doused in molten sugar - without consequences. Asking for a sample of your brain tissue after being possessed = grievous harm power fantasy. Drugging a possessed malevolent entity = grievous harm power fantasy. Saving the city, bystander gets some marshmallow on him = grievous harm power fantasy. This disingenuous reading gave me a good laugh, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:Asking for a sample of your brain tissue after being possessed = grievous harm power fantasy. I'm still reeling from the testosterone-fueled power fantasy that is Home Alone. You think you can get hit by paint cans and fall down the stairs without dying? Puh-loving-lease
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:I'm still reeling from the testosterone-fueled power fantasy that is Home Alone. You think you can get hit by paint cans and fall down the stairs without dying? Puh-loving-lease That kid should have been imprisoned! You can't set someone's head on fire without repercussions! I'm so loving mad! POWER TRIPS!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:You're not allowed to put more thought into a movie than anyone involved with the production of it did. Erin's Boss Erin's Boss is, to both Rowan and Erin's characters, sort of figure that is a hold over from another time. The character is there to represent a long-running intellectual, academic and cultural elitism in regards to the trappings of geek culture. These are the people who never embraced fandom and never will. While we dedicated pages and pages and articles and academic papers on the cultural and social significance of genre fandom today, Erin's Boss is not buying any of it. It's all a joke, it's all garbage, we're not going to entertain that the Walking Dead has any value, that a superhero movie has anything to say on class struggle, that Harry Potter is anything more than children's books, that comic books are dumb, etc. He's the guy pretty much looks at the Watchmen graphic novel and throws it in the trash without reading it because he already knows it has no value. He's not going to pretend to care about Star Trek inspiring people to go into science because it's not real science, a comic book that seriously chronicles growing up a lesbian girl in the south, etc. The Debunker The Debunker is also a critic of geek culture, but at the same time he's actively part of the culture he's criticizing. He's a debunker of the paranormal, but despite all the accusations to the contrary, he's just as much a part of the study of the paranormal culture as the people he takes down. He needs that culture to exist or else he wouldn't have anything to debunk. He is not quite the same as Erin's Boss, but more the example of the extreme progression of the modern geek-chic. He is not simply debunking, he's the stand-in for the modern genre-deconstructing fandom. He's a figure that's heavily tied to the geek culture, possibly at one time or actively considers himself a big fan, but now that it's so popular and mainstream, the only direction left for him to go is to be cooler than it, to discredit it and criticize it. He's against the internally-accepted popularity of things in geek culture and is going to set the record straight. Imagine him instead coming into a room and saying, "You've got a female superhero Ghostbusters in that DVD case? I just bet you do. Well, why don't you try to tell me about your progressive superhero movie and I'll sit you down and explain to you why it's a 2-hour explosion-fest celebrating fascism..." The Cab Driver Cab Driver is honestly representing the most normal fandom person in the film. He's there to represent someone who is a casual genre fan, but they were never really too deep into the fandom scene of any era to be labeled by it or defined by it. To him, everything's normal, nothing's odd with any of this and his response when being informed of even MORE geek culture is just a shrug. He's seen it all before, going to keep doing what he's doing and engage in it as comfortably as he sees fit. JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:Asking for a sample of your brain tissue after being possessed = grievous harm power fantasy. Likewise, the 'joke' with the thorazine is the not-really-subtext sexual innuendo, the implication that Venkman hosed the demon to sleep, etc. In 2016, the 'joke' is that nobody cares about this guy. He dies in the way that a cartoon character dies. People really just lack knowledge of historical context. Ghostbusters 1 was part of a wave of 'revenge of the nerds' movies, along with Real Genius, Short Circuit, and so-on. In 2016, nerds are no longer the underdogs. There's a team of nerds called The Avengers, whose film is literally about avenging a nerd - or more specifically how that's a flimsy pretense for a world takeover scheme. The underdog films of the 1980s are now obsolete. Without basic knowledge of the genre, you won't understand how the genre is criticized in a film like Chappie, or celebrated/parodied in a film like this. Ghostbusters 2016 was a failed attempt to bring back the 'revenge of the nerds' genre by making a film about those nerds who are still excluded underdogs. In this case, it's specifically focussed on female nerds who don't fit the 'Young Adult' pigeonhole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
I really can't see how you're associating this with underdog movies when the central villain is a loner dork who electrocutes himself to death to become a ghost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Likewise, the 'joke' with the thorazine is the not-really-subtext sexual innuendo, the implication that Venkman hosed the demon to sleep, etc. You're pretty hosed up!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Venkman: I just whacked her up with 300cc's of thorazine, she's gonna talk a little nap now. A-HA! He hosed her to sleep! Man I'm so good at catching these things humans call "jokes"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Well, let's say this Twinkee represents the normal amount of reproductive fluids in Peter's body, which is represented by a syringe of thorazine...
JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Terrific Accident posted:I really can't see how you're associating this with underdog movies when the central villain is a loner dork who electrocutes himself to death to become a ghost. This is is a character who decides while mocked and harassed by a gang of peers for the last time that suicide is the best way to solve his problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
I just Googled thorazine and it's actually a medication to treat schizophrenia (I always though it was just a sedative). Another joke I only just discovered in the best film ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In Ghostbusters 1 they threaten to unleash a ghost on a man, douse a crowd with marshmallow napalm, almost nuke Manhattan... Your comparisons are not apt. Almost. But not quite. All of yours are almosts. In 2016 they actually murder a human being with no repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Because he challenged them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
I must've missed the part where they murder someone. I remember someone getting badly hurt or killed because a ghost was released due to someone's incompetence, which also happens in the original, except to an entire city instead of one person. And the person responsible suffers the very minor consequence of getting marshmallow dumped on him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
Terrific Accident posted:I really can't see how you're associating this with underdog movies when the central villain is a loner dork who electrocutes himself to death to become a ghost. As in every superhero movie ever made, the villain is a 'dark' version of the heroes. He stands for what happens when the underdogs snap and do terrible things, don't learn to 'behave constructively', etc.. It's the logical extreme of Bill Murray being attacked. So the characters overcome the darker parts of themselves and blah blah blah. This is not a difficult movie to criticize, which is what makes these blundered attempts so glaring. Ghostbusters 2016 failed not because of the 'fake gamer girl' agenda but because it homages an obsolete genre of mostly-lame films to comment on an insular nerd slapfight that has been amplified beyond any sense of scope by the Internet meme machine. Kevin, for example, is half a parody of 'bimbo' stereotypes of the 1980s, and half a sincere attempt at resurrecting bimbo humour in 2016. Who was clamouring for that? It's a failed experiment. But people start getting really weird thoughts, like that fake women are FORCING you to LIE and say you enjoy the film or face PERSECUTION. So saying the lovely Apatowian cartoon movie is bad becomes the ultimate act of resistance, while other equally-lovely films are instantly forgotten. The reaction is identical to the fear that Obama's going to take away your guns, so you buy hundreds of guns and wear a gun T-Shirt, and talk about guns all the time, threaten to assassinate the president, etc. This doesn't happen with any other consumer product. It happens with guns specifically because of the fake prohibition - the belief that your soul exists in this thing, and someone is trying to steal your soul. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:I must've missed the part where they murder someone. I remember someone getting badly hurt or killed because a ghost was released due to someone's incompetence, which also happens in the original, except to an entire city instead of one person. And the person responsible suffers the very minor consequence of getting marshmallow dumped on him. I can totally understand that you may have forgot a part of this completely forgettable movie, no worries. I'm speaking of when they murder bill Murray's character and there is no repercussion or even a mention of it afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:As in every superhero movie ever made, the villain is a 'dark' version of the heroes. He stands for what happens when the underdogs snap and do terrible things, don't learn to 'behave constructively', etc.. It's the logical extreme of Bill Murray being attacked. So the characters overcome the darker parts of themselves and blah blah blah. This is not a difficult movie to criticize, which is what makes these blundered attempts so glaring. You're garbage and don't understand film nearly as much as you think you do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
You would be laughed out of USC or any film school worth its salt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Well, to be clear, you would not even get in because your incoherent application would be disregarded immediately. But please, continue to post your mindless moronic essays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 10:45
|
|