|
fist4jesus posted:My point was about availability. But you seem to want to argue. Nah, I just want you to post clearly in the first place. If you want to talk about availability, knock yourself out.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:They were good stories about Ghostbusters but they still lacked some of the necessary edge and wit the first movie had Ah, but the reason why Ghostbusters ended up becoming a mega-hit, beyond its target demographic, was the sci-fi action, the outfits and gear, the concept itself. Dan Aykroyd is a massive nerd, into real paranormal investigation, and into sci-fi and fantasy, UFO conspiracies, the Bermuda Triangle, you name it. His original concept was set in the future, and about rival teams of Ghostbusters dealing with all kinds of giant monsters and demons and a dimensional-jumping, time-travelling Ecto-1. It would have been a massive sci-fi special effects extravaganza. Ivan Reitman said that his script would have been 'the most expensive film ever made'. (The story might have been crap, but if there'd been some way to film it, it probably would have been a hit simply due to the sheer spectacle of it.) Nowadays, in this era of Marvel superhero movies, Dan Aykroyd's script would actually be filmable. But in the 80s it wasn't, so Ivan Reitman got Harold Ramis to bring Dan back down to Earth, make Ghostbusters into a much smaller story, a 'going into business' story, with about 10% the amount of effects and gadgetry than Dan Aykroyd had intended. When the film first came out, they didn't have any toys or merchandise. This smaller, going-into-business movie was meant to be a comedy for adults (and maybe teenagers), except with a sci-fi/supernatural twist. The selling points were the stuff you're talking about : the wit, the comic talents of the cast. Many adults loved the film for that reason. However, the filmmakers were surprised that kids absolutely loved it, even more than the grown-ups. Kids in playgrounds all over the world were playing Ghostbusters. So they decided to make a cartoon, and toys, etc, and the sequel was made more kid-friendly. So you talk about 'necessary edge and wit', but who deems that edge and wit to be 'necessary'? It's necessary for adults that aren't nerds, for people that don't care about sci-fi lasers. For them Ghostbusters is about the comedy. But for sci-fi nerds who loved Star Wars, and for kids, it was about the actual Ghostbusting. (Even though that was only a few minutes of the whole film.) And it was about the costumes and the gear and the ghosts. Another key factor is that in the world of Ghostbusters, you didn't have to be a superhero or some prophesied 'Chosen One' to deal with monsters and demons... Egon and Ray might have designed and built the technology, but Peter and Winston didn't need any special knowledge or skills. Any idiot could answer an advert in the newspaper, join Ghosbusters Inc, strap on a proton pack and blast the boogieman. That's a very appealing concept to kids. And to adults, too! You know those cosplayers that dress up in Ghostbusters uniforms and build their own proton packs and have their own local Ghostbusters franchises, raising money for charity? If Ghostbusting was actually a real job, then you know they'd be applying to do that job for real. "Hell yeah, I get to help people... and shoot ghosts with lasers! Coolest job ever! Previous experience required: NONE!" Cartoons don't have the same sorts of problems that movies do when it comes to budgets and special effects. In the cartoon, the Ghostbusters got to bust ghosts every 20-minute episode. Of course proton packs alone don't make a great show, it worked because there was also plenty of great comedy. It was a kids' show, and yet it had writers with experience of writing quality adult sci-fi. The cartoon managed to take everything that was good about the first film - the comedy and the sci-fi - and serve up a condensed 20 minute version of that formula every episode. (Well, not every episode, since plenty of episodes were crap. But the good episodes managed to do it.) your evil twin fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Why exclude Lucas and Spielberg Because they are typically credited with the invention of the blockbuster, and my point is to show that what we understand as blockbusters today were rare. You had ET, Star Wars 3, and then Tootsie. Ghostbusters was also a new type of movie that broke from the Spielberg/Lucas mold - being a ‘meta’ film about its own commercial spectacle, mass marketing, etc. In 1984 it was a joke that the characters had their own logo. Now it’s expected. This is the trend that Godzilla 1998 continued, having characters literally called Siskel and Ebert show up and criticize the blockbuster spectacle. The movie ends on a stadium where the monsters are eating popcorn, and so-forth. Tony Stark sells Iron Man merch in the films themselves, plastic masks going for presumably 20 bucks each.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
I was too young to notice, but I feel like the 80's is when the multiplex cinema took hold. I remember at one point going to a movie in my grandparent's tiny town, which had a tiny two screen theater with terrible sound. I saw Face Off there, and I wish I was older and could have appreciated just how antiquated the experience itself was. For me I've always lived in a multiplex cinema world, where you can see one of twenty different movies in the same building.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Nah, I just want you to post clearly in the first place. If you want to talk about availability, knock yourself out. I've explained it twice. High quality product + Time of scarcity. = Beloved & Nostalgia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
your evil twin posted:Ah, but the reason why Ghostbusters ended up becoming a mega-hit, beyond its target demographic, was the sci-fi action, the outfits and gear, the concept itself. See, this is the premise I fundamentally disagree with. The 80s were full of high concept sci-fi action films that failed to gain the audience Ghostbusters did. It wasn't the setting that made the movie, it was the people making it. The 80s are a graveyard of high concept flops and only the films that actually had talent in front of and behind the camera survived. If Ackroyd's original script had been filmed the movie would have been a bomb, then and now. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Because they are typically credited with the invention of the blockbuster, and my point is to show that what we understand as blockbusters today were rare. You had ET, Star Wars 3, and then Tootsie. Ghostbusters was also a new type of movie that broke from the Spielberg/Lucas mold - being a ‘meta’ film about its own commercial spectacle, mass marketing, etc. In 1984 it was a joke that the characters had their own logo. Now it’s expected. You are mixing your terms. Top-Grossing films and "blockbusters" are not the same thing. For example, when you say "Terms of Endearment was the highest grossing film outside of Star Wars" you are ignoring that Star Wars made over twice as much money as Terms of Endearment did. Same thing with ET and Tootsie. Just because Tootsie and Terms of Endearment made a lot of money didn't make them blockbusters because they didn't, pardon the term, bust any blocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I was too young to notice, but I feel like the 80's is when the multiplex cinema took hold. Happy to be corrected but I think the 20+ multiplex is mostly an American thing? Here (Australia) we usually have under 10 even on the newer ones. My local one has 5. Back in the 80s I think 4-5 was about the average and sometimes they played the same stuff for 3+ months. Aliens for example went for 20 months. So thats 25% off the table right there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Because they are typically credited with the invention of the blockbuster, and my point is to show that what we understand as blockbusters today were rare. You had ET, Star Wars 3, and then Tootsie. Ghostbusters was also a new type of movie that broke from the Spielberg/Lucas mold - being a ‘meta’ film about its own commercial spectacle, mass marketing, etc. In 1984 it was a joke that the characters had their own logo. Now it’s expected. To continue on, Ghostbusters was also fair from unique in the year it was released. Ghostbusters wasn't even the top grossing film, that was Beverly Hills Cop which was another action-comedy, and the two films after Ghostbusters were the equally Meta gremlins and the Lucas/Spielberg Temple of Doom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You are mixing your terms. Top-Grossing films and "blockbusters" are not the same thing. For example, when you say "Terms of Endearment was the highest grossing film outside of Star Wars" you are ignoring that Star Wars made over twice as much money as Terms of Endearment did. Same thing with ET and Tootsie. You’re getting confused. My point is entirely that Tootsie was not a blockbuster. Blockbusters were rare in 1984, and blockbusters like Ghostbusters were nonexistent. If you go through a list of other 1983 films that might qualify as blockbusters, you have basically Jaws 3D, Superman III, Octopussy, and... Krull? Note that one is a Jaws sequel and one is a Star Wars rip-off. The claim is not that Ghostbusters is the first action-comedy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You’re getting confused. My point is entirely that Tootsie was not a blockbuster. Blockbusters were rare in 1984, and blockbusters like Ghostbusters were nonexistent There were four blockbusters in 1984 and one of which was explicitly a meta action-comedy SuperMechagodzilla posted:If you go through a list of other 1983 films that might qualify as blockbusters, you have basically Jaws 3D, Superman III, Octopussy, and... Krull? Note that one is a Jaws sequel and one is a Star Wars rip-off. Are you defining a blockbuster as a marker of success or as a genre-marker? You seem to be fluctuating between both. Because none of those films financially were blockbusters and two of them are sequels to pre-blockbuster-era franchises. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
also maybe im a moron but i enjoyed gb1, bg2, the cartoons with the weird dudes and the ps3 game. i didnt like gb2016. gb2 is a legit scary movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:There were four blockbusters in 1984 and one of which was explicitly a meta action-comedy I have been talking about blockbusters as a genre, which is why I’ve been consistently referring to genre elements within the films. I brought up Tootsie to illustrate that no films in 1983 resembled Ghostbusters. Recently, on the other hand, Suicide Squad parodied The Avengers and was consequently a fairly obvious spin on the Ghostbusters template. An alien god with an army of drones opens a spectacular apocalypse-portal in New York, so this team of quirky characters has to team up to save the planet. You’ve seen it a hundred times. Godzilla substitutes a lizard (with drones), and ID4 has UFOs (with drones), but those are minor variations. Basically every film with a big apocalyptic laser beam shooting up into (or down from) the sky is referencing Ghostbusters. Amazing Spiderman has the doomsday device on the skyscraper roof that turns everyone into lizards. Ninja Turtles, yep. Transformers 3, yep. These obviously aren’t just ‘fun movies with action’. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I have been talking about blockbusters as a genre, which is why I’ve been consistently referring to genre elements within the films. Then you are going to have to articulate your criteria for the genre Especially since in thematic and narrative elements, not to mention marketing elements, the Lucas and Spielberg blockbusters were often extremely different. SuperMechagodzilla posted:An alien god with an army of drones opens a spectacular apocalypse-portal in New York, so this team of quirky characters has to team up to save the planet. You’ve seen it a hundred times. Godzilla substitutes a lizard (with drones), and ID4 has UFOs (with drones), but those are minor variations. Basically every film with a big apocalyptic laser beam shooting up into (or down from) the sky is referencing Ghostbusters. Amazing Spiderman has the doomsday device on the skyscraper roof that turns everyone into lizards. Ninja Turtles, yep. Transformers 3, yep. These obviously aren’t just ‘fun movies with action’. This is a save the cat level scriptwriting trope, not a genre in and of itself Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Nah, all the films including Ghostbusters that feature a giant laser shooting into the sky (and a spinning circle of storm clouds suddenly appearing) which summons an alien god who strikes down the unbelievers with destructor drones is referencing Raiders of the Lost Ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0APF3SO9tqE (So the original 'alien god' was the Old Testament Abrahamic God.  )Note that Ghostbusters also 'borrows' the "placid female ghost turns into a screaming monstrous ghoul" shot from this scene for the Library Ghost gag. (Also note that Raiders may have got the idea for a laser from space that people summon in the expectation that it will bestow God's benevolence upon them but which actually disintegrates their asses from the 1979 Quatermass TV serial.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:This is a save the cat level scriptwriting trope, not a genre in and of itself So post some examples of that trope showing up in a romcom or a historical biopic or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:So post some examples of that trope showing up in a romcom or a historical biopic or something. Sleepless in Seattle Edit: of course the criticism is pointless but I couldn't resist being snide Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Take your weird alt-right YouTuber talking points and gently caress off. The United States posted:"Obviously, someone over there thought that name recognition plus SJW pandering would guarantee massive profits." This is what denialism looks like, kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
The movie is real bad, but you’re worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The movie is real bad, but you’re worse. Because I don't have sympathy for overgrown children in Hollywood insulting their audiences for rejecting their recent, uninspired works? These people are literally pretending to be victims in order to market their bad movies - of course they're going to be mocked for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
Truly, not all heroes wear capes
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:Because I don't have sympathy for overgrown children in Hollywood insulting their audiences for rejecting their recent, uninspired works? These people are literally pretending to be victims in order to market their bad movies - of course they're going to be mocked for it. The audience should be insulted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
I mean, she was the victim of a racially motivated and months long harassment campaign because she dared to be in a remake for a franchise totemic to white virgins and you think she is being spoiled for being upset that the studio was quick to undercut her and the film once it wasnt successful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The audience should be insulted. You just said the film is real bad, so does that include you as well? Do you even understand what you're saying anymore? Mel Mudkiper posted:I mean, she was the victim of a racially motivated and months long harassment campaign because she dared to be in a remake for a franchise totemic to white virgins and you think she is being spoiled for being upset that the studio was quick to undercut her and the film once it wasnt successful? She only found a different audience full of white virgins on SNL. And I'm not surprised you're deliberately conflating what Milo and his fans did with every critic of that movie. Slutitution fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:She only found a different audience full of white virgins on SNL. And I'm not surprised you're deliberately conflating what Milo and his fans did with every critic of that movie. I'm not
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
More like HollyWEIRD amirite? Am I right? Where's the lie, am I right? Holly WEIRD. These (((actors))) are getting out of hand, if you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:More like HollyWEIRD amirite? Am I right? Where's the lie, am I right? Holly WEIRD. These (((actors))) are getting out of hand, if you know what I mean. I should have clarified how hysterical, overgrown children are not restricted to Hollywood, as illustrated by this post. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Nobody reply to that jerk, he'll ruin the thread with that poo poo. If you want to talk about what was or wasn't funny in the 2016 movie itself go hog wild. Here, I'll start... Kate MacKinnon dancing with a blow torch made me laugh. The queef and "I got ecto plasm in my pussy" jokes were cringey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
I actually kind of dig the black light carnival haunted house design of the ghosts in GB2016. I mean it’s not nearly as charming as the puppet work done in the first two films, but it was one of the few cases where the movie sketched out its own identity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Fart City posted:I actually kind of dig the black light carnival haunted house design of the ghosts in GB2016. I mean it’s not nearly as charming as the puppet work done in the first two films, but it was one of the few cases where the movie sketched out its own identity. I genuinely thought they looked really impressive and I was shocked to find people weren't fans
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
I still wish they released a full version of the sweded Ghostbusters movie from Be Kind Rewind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLXjlsKCVc
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I genuinely thought they looked really impressive and I was shocked to find people weren't fans To be clear, I like the aesthetics. I think the designs were... good to just okay. That dragon thing sucked rear end. It felt like it was from a completely different movie. I liked the parade float ghosts quite a bit. That was really fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Then you are going to have to articulate your criteria for the genre I did. I am talking about blockbuster movies similar to Ghostbusters. These are movies about their own commercial spectacle, mass marketing, etc. In the Ghostbusters films, the point is that they literally dispel ‘bad vibes’ by making people feel good. Typically these ‘bad vibes’ take the form of an alien god with an army of drones who opens a spectacular apocalypse-portal in New York, so this team of quirky characters has to team up to save the planet. An implicit point I’ve made is that these are usually superhero movies. An example is The Avengers, which ends with a montage of people celebrating the restoration of status quo by buying Avengers merch. The genre is also criticized in the darkly comedic Watchmen, where the alien god is framed for the destruction of New York by The Crimebusters, ultimately so that the Tony Stark analogue can sell such as Crimebuster action figures. Films like Star Wars are a clear antecedents. Some films are Ghostbusters-adjacent, like Jurassic World. You lost track of the argument, which is not quibbling over the definition of a blockbuster but simply that these sorts of films are ubiquitous now. There is a massive glut of ghostbuster movies, and movies commenting on those movies - but that fact hasn’t made fans any happier. So, in your case, you insist that you specifically want a movie with ‘the lightning’ - a sci-fi movie called Ghostbusters about Reaganomics made in 1984 with a young Bill Murray. And not the one that actually exists and is instantly viewable at any time of the day, because that’s no good either. That’s innocent enough, I suppose. But then you have this Polanski-praising weirdo believing that ‘the lightning’ comes from Aryan skull shape. Nerdism is bad. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You lost track of the argument, which is not quibbling over the definition of a blockbuster but simply that these sorts of films are ubiquitous now. I expected better from SMG than to contradict himself within the same sentence This is why I am a BOTLite
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:This is why I am a BOTLite 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
You fools, you took his bait, I wondered why there were 40 new posts in the Ghostbusters thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:You fools, you took his bait, I wondered why there were 40 new posts in the Ghostbusters thread I wanted to see the legend in action
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Fart City posted:I actually kind of dig the black light carnival haunted house design of the ghosts in GB2016. I mean it’s not nearly as charming as the puppet work done in the first two films, but it was one of the few cases where the movie sketched out its own identity. GB2016 had a ton of problems, but one of the biggest ones I felt was how rigidly the filmmakers decided to weld the film to the original—and not just in story and aesthetics, but in how there were constant references to the original films. It was a decision that ultimately appealed to nobody—for fans of original film (Such as myself) it just felt distracting (because it constantly invited direct comparisons to the original film, and those comparisons weren't positive), and those same callbacks were utterly lost on anyone who wasn't familiar with the original. If they had straight-up axed most if not all of the references... well, it still wouldn't have been great, but I personally would have probably enjoyed it a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I expected better from SMG than to contradict himself within the same sentence There’s no contradiction there unless you don’t perceive a difference between the phrase “blockbuster movies similar to Ghostbusters” and “all blockbuster movies ever”. I even gave an example of two blockbuster films that are significantly different from Ghostbusters (Jurassic World and Star Wars), and films that are similar but not blockbusters (e.g. Emergo).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
Fart City posted:I actually kind of dig the black light carnival haunted house design of the ghosts in GB2016. I mean it’s not nearly as charming as the puppet work done in the first two films, but it was one of the few cases where the movie sketched out its own identity. they were cgi piece of shits ghosts arent supposed to be charming
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
DoctorGonzo posted:they were cgi piece of shits Slimer is charming. He had his own Hi-C flavor. Have you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 14:51
|
|