Ghostbusters 3 didn't actually vanish into thin air; it turned into Ghostbusters: The Video Game which is pretty good and a decent sequel.
(Reminder that it had all 4 main actors and the writers from the films)
[QUOTE=Loadingue;50336477]Ghostbusters 3 didn't actually vanish into thin air: it turned into Ghostbusters: The Video Game which is pretty good and a decent sequel.
(Reminder that it had all 4 main actors and the writers from the films)[/QUOTE]
Guess it sucks for them that watching a 2 1/2 hour "movie" edit of that game on youtube for free would be a better experience.
Honestly, the Video Game (Talking about the PS3/360/PC Version here) was the third movie. I dont care how many people said the game sucked, since as a kid playing it who loved Ghostbusters ( read, me ) was the most satisfying gaming experience and IT FELT LIKE I WAS PLAYING THE MOVIE
Good for James,that movie is going to be so easy for people to make money off it by shitting on it.
James, if a movie introduces new characters and a new story while acknowledging and following up on what came before, that's not a reboot. That's a sequel especially if there's a number in the title..
Good for him. If you think something is going to suck why give them money?
Techniquely its a sequel since it is in the same universe as the original ghostbusters but 30 years later however since its actually 27 years ago since ghosterbusters 2 was released then you can see its a more or less a reboot
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;50337403]James, if a movie introduces new characters and a new story while acknowledging and following up on what came before, that's not a reboot. That's a sequel especially if there's a number in the title..[/QUOTE]
They kept advertising it like it was a reboot
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;50337403]James, if a movie introduces new characters and a new story while acknowledging and following up on what came before, that's not a reboot. That's a sequel especially if there's a number in the title..[/QUOTE]
He acknowledges that right after he calls it a remake...
he makes a real good point about people who say "wow this movie is going to suck so im gonna see it when it opens just to reinforce that view" thinking that after it they'll make some comment online that it sucked but it doesn't matter
you just paid $15 admission that has now gone to the studio, regardless of the reviews, the film will be a blockbuster success
I'm seeing a lot of people on twitter ripping into him for this video. Most of them people who didn't even watch it and are just assuming he's hating on it because it has women. It's really shitty.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;50338105]just assuming he's hating on it because it has women. [/QUOTE]
That plays into part of the marketing. When people are going to the trailer and disliking it based on the special effects, storyline, jokes, etc. bloggers/bloggers disguised as journalists can go and say people are nitpicking it because it has a cast of women at the forefront. I feel like criticism can just be dismissed because it involves giving women a larger role, even if the final product is a giant pile of crap.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;50337641]Techniquely its a sequel since it is in the same universe as the original ghostbusters but 30 years later however since its actually 27 years ago since ghosterbusters 2 was released then you can see its a more or less a reboot[/QUOTE]
Wait it's not a new universe? Then why are they getting the old cast members to have cameos as different characters instead of appearing as the original ones like James mentioned?
[QUOTE=Lucinice;50338171]Wait it's not a new universe? Then why are they getting the old cast members to have cameos as different characters instead of appearing as the original ones like James mentioned?[/QUOTE]
I'm thinking so based on the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw"]trailer [/URL]which states that 30 years ago a team of scientists saved NY and now a new team will pick it up.
[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;50338120]That plays into part of the marketing. When people are going to the trailer and disliking it based on the special effects, storyline, jokes, etc. bloggers/bloggers disguised as journalists can go and say people are nitpicking it because it has a cast of women at the forefront. I feel like criticism can just be dismissed because it involves giving women a larger role, even if the final product is a giant pile of crap.[/QUOTE]
People are hating the fact the cast is all women because the original cast was all men. It kind of just tramples on the original film.
If the original film was all women, I don't think anyone would have as much of a problem.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;50338105]I'm seeing a lot of people on twitter ripping into him for this video. Most of them people who didn't even watch it and are just assuming he's hating on it because it has women. It's really shitty.[/QUOTE]
It's a bit ingenious by Sony. They hired a [I]diverse™[/I] cast to play the lead characters so they could use them to deflect any criticism of the movie (even though their characters are all complete stereotypes and/or are trying and failing to be a "modern" version of the old cast). The film's director acted like a man-child about it and blamed geek culture for the criticism saying "Geek culture is home to some of the biggest assholes" (to which the media ate the shit up).
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50338030]he makes a real good point about people who say "wow this movie is going to suck so im gonna see it when it opens just to reinforce that view" thinking that after it they'll make some comment online that it sucked but it doesn't matter
you just paid $15 admission that has now gone to the studio, regardless of the reviews, the film will be a blockbuster success[/QUOTE]
He is right, but if you don't see it you pretty much forfeit the right to complain about it.
[editline]17th May 2016[/editline]
Don't know how this is dumb, it's kind of hard to critique something you've never seen.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;50338232]I'm thinking so based on the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw"]trailer [/URL]which states that 30 years ago a team of scientists saved NY and now a new team will pick it up.[/QUOTE]
That's not what happens in the movie, though:
[QUOTE]In an interview on "The Johnjay and Rich Show" on Monday, [Melissa McCarthy] said she was perplexed as to why the trailer began with a title card touting action that happened "30 years ago" in the 1984 version of "Ghostbusters."
"It's a reboot, not a remake," McCarthy told the radio hosts. "I know it's weird that they say '30 years ago,' but in this movie it's like the first one didn't happen. It's that great story but told totally differently. But it's the same thing of four unlikely heroes. It's in New York City [and] ghosts are taking over."
McCarthy noted that she voiced her displeasure with the "30 years ago" reference, but her concerns were ignored.
"Believe me, the question was asked," she explained. "I was like, 'I think that's very confusing.' But then everyone said, 'We don't care what you think.'"[/QUOTE]
Kind of sounds like Sony doesn't know what the fuck they are doing.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;50338232]I'm thinking so based on the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw"]trailer [/URL]which states that 30 years ago a team of scientists saved NY and now a new team will pick it up.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that was basically just to try to get some nostalgia from fans, the other movies did not happen in the lore of this new one.
If the movie is going to suck, then the movie trailer has failed to convince it's viewers. If you go watch a bad movie, you will end up giving them money and rewarding them for making a bad movie.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;50338343]Kind of sounds like Sony doesn't know what the fuck they are doing.[/QUOTE]
I mean they're making a 21 jump street MIB crossover, like where the hell did that come from?
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;50338343]Kind of sounds like Sony doesn't know what the fuck they are doing.[/QUOTE]
They spent at least seven figures to get the rights to an emoji movie, continue to work closely with Happy Madison Productions, and making an R rated cartoon even after the script leaked and people just thought it was a dud.
What exactly tipped you off?
[QUOTE=Shaohs;50337780]They kept advertising it like it was a reboot[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;50337953]He acknowledges that right after he calls it a remake...[/QUOTE]
Probably should've mentioned that was directed at his remarks over calling Episode 7.
But hey, clarifying your shit is for idiots and losers, right?
If these are the actual real posters
[img]http://i.imgur.com/FqT16iu.png[/img]
That tells you all you need to know about how this remake is gonna turn out.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;50338960]If these are the actual real posters
[img]http://i.imgur.com/FqT16iu.png[/img]
That tells you all you need to know about how this remake is gonna turn out.[/QUOTE]
They look fine, if a bit generic. What's the problem with them?
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;50338105]I'm seeing a lot of people on twitter ripping into him for this video.[/QUOTE]
I hadn't bothered to look because I don't really get into that crap, and wow, this is stupid.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/6XYh7tp.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/7nIH4Wd.jpg[/t]
They're really giving him shit for the Star Trek V standee, jesus fucking christ
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;50338233]People are hating the fact the cast is all women because the original cast was all men. It kind of just tramples on the original film.
If the original film was all women, I don't think anyone would have as much of a problem.[/QUOTE]
Woooo baseless blanket statements.
No, dude, [I]dude.[/I]
They're hating on it because the "fuck yearh girl power" thing they were going for got completely shafted with poor acting, crap jokes, and [I]they made the only black chick in the movie a complete fucking stereotype[/I].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
