• The Ghostbusters Reboot Fan Club
    725 replies, posted
[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;50698461]You said third twice.[/QUOTE] Oh, woops, thanks for pointing that out.
[QUOTE=spekter;50698259]You can attribute the audience reaction to The Witch as them expecting it to be more jump scare schlock because the trailers sold it as another The Conjuring. I would also argue The Witch is somewhat niche given most people don't really know much about the lore or what inspired the film overall.[/QUOTE] are you saying the conjuring was jumpscare schlock?
The Ghostbusters trailers killed whatever interest I had to begin with, conspiracies notwithstanding. The characters are one note, the story feels like a bad rehash of the first one, the jokes are awful with the one good joke spoiled in the 2nd trailer. I'm just tired of all this. Let this be over soon... [QUOTE=AaronM202;50698476]Oh, woops, thanks for pointing that out.[/QUOTE] No problem. I do share a similar stance on the Transformers 'Cinematic Universe'(that just sounds so weird when not Marvel related). TF1 was good, the second one is world-renown for its terrible execution(though that forest fight is a guilty pleasure), the third one is a step up imo but not better than TF1, and the fourth one is a mess from beginning to end worse than the second one. I have little faith in the 5th one even with Sir Anthony Hopkins and that kick-ass leaked script.
Reviews from other people are how you judge for yourself whether or not you wish to use your own money to purchase a product or service. If you trust someone to give an honest opinion and they tell you negative things about that product/service, then you are not obligated to purchase it anyways just to find out it's shit and you wasted your money. That's fucking retarded. [b]Welcome to capitalism and the free economy[/b], where you are not obligated to use your hard-earned money on things that you do not wish to. Everyone that says that you should "see the movie anyway to judge for yourself" are people that: a) Are ignorant of how the economy works, or b) Know how the economy works, but pretend that it doesn't matter This Tu Quoque, stawman way of criticizing critics for being "sexist" is just a nasty shit-flinging pointless endeavor that shouldn't happen in the first place. It's fucking stupid and the only reason it happens is to give feminists a shitty avenue to push their agenda, god knows whatever it is. And, until people are educated on why this is stupid, it will continue to happen because the common dumbass will eat it up and preach it because they don't know it's a highly flawed argument.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50698502]are you saying the conjuring was jumpscare schlock?[/QUOTE] A bad example maybe, but it was a by-the-numbers ghost movie and nowhere near the atmosphere that The Witch aimed for.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50697199]"No but go see it." "You cant know if you dont go see it." "But go see it." No, im NOT going to go see it, because FUCK this movie. The trailers painted this as a piece of schlock thats not even "so bad its good", the studio were dickheads about it and tried to redirect criticism as misogyny, and everyone defending the movie is either saying "well just go see it" or "you hate women". So no, im not giving this movie a chance, it can go eat a barrel of phantom cocks.[/QUOTE] you dont have to fucking go to the movies dude.. lol.. you can be mad at the studio for redirecting every criticsm into being mysogony, and you can say that its an unethical fanbase that supports it lol, but you shouldn't say the actual CONTENT is bad unless you've seen it. see littany of examples above. you just have this weird fucking vindictive logic going on. and @infiniteseed: most reviews aren't saying its bad so while I agree with your point that one does not need to PERSONALLY see it (can use reviews, etc), in this case it seems that the evidence points to it (despite the shitty process going into making it) being decent if not enjoyable.
Rocco goes hard in this non-parody review [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVoQkYsUxhE[/media]
so why are these SJW idiots who give feminism a bad name defending this movie instead of demanding that they deserve better treatment. you would think these professional complainers would complain...
[QUOTE=Flameon;50698850]you dont have to fucking go to the movies dude.. lol.. you can be mad at the studio for redirecting every criticsm into being mysogony, and you can say that its an unethical fanbase that supports it lol, but you shouldn't say the actual CONTENT is bad unless you've seen it. see littany of examples above. you just have this weird fucking vindictive logic going on.[/QUOTE] Trailers look like visual cancer, ive seen all i need to see. I can count on both hands how many films looked attrocious in the trailers and ended up being good. I guarantee you this isnt one. [QUOTE=Flameon;50698850]and @infiniteseed: most reviews aren't saying its bad so while I agree with your point that one does not need to PERSONALLY see it (can use reviews, etc), in this case it seems that the evidence points to it (despite the shitty process going into making it) being decent if not enjoyable.[/QUOTE] lol No they're not. Most reviews arent reviews of the movie, they're just shitting on people who dont like the movie.
I'm sorry but there are 3 huge things that should be a red flag to people who are thinking about seeing this. 1: Trailers are absolute garbage. For a comedy movie, I didn't do any laughing at all. 2: Movie production was "troubled" to put it lightly. 3: If the "critics" have to keep banging on about the backlash instead of the actual movie and telling me, you know, WHAT THEY LIKED ABOUT IT, something tells me the movie isn't very noteworthy. Plus you know, fuck Paul Feig. I won't entertain any of his shit after it was decided that [sp]shooting a ghost in the dick[/sp] was the best climax for the movie.
[QUOTE=meppers;50699054]so why are these SJW idiots who give feminism a bad name defending this movie instead of demanding that they deserve better treatment. you would think these professional complainers would complain...[/QUOTE] They have a major investment in this succeeding whether they are entirely aware of it or not. This has been the poster child for the "SJW progressiveness" that they want shoved into movies. It has been pushed as this unashamedly for almost the entirety of it's existence. The actual cast and crew have decried any form of criticism as sexist or racist. If/when this bombs, the studios will take notice in a negative way. Studios will see that it's not critically/economically profitable to go about this route again. I think the complainers want to do their best to try and proclaim it as a success. When they realize it's a lost cause then they will try to damn the movie and it's crew for "not really being a progressive movie". I am expecting articles like "6 ways Paul Feig profits of sexist stereotypes" in the next 2-3 weeks. Another thing to consider is the number of people that are going to look like total fools. Look at how many journalists and reviewers have attacked their own audiences regarding the movie. If the movie flops, so do the journalists in terms of credibility.
[video=youtube;a9_lhRqhkBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9_lhRqhkBw[/video]
[QUOTE=Wii60;50701720][video=youtube;a9_lhRqhkBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9_lhRqhkBw[/video][/QUOTE] So basically this confirms the RT score - A movie that's OK and doesn't live up to the original film, with elements of it that are good and a few more that are just bad. You can also tell how careful he was in making this review, a lot of it seems to be gingerly stepping through the massive hate for the film.
[QUOTE=Naught;50698006]not really. trailers are there to pull you into the movie. if the trailers are bad, you can predict that the movie will be bad. (because those come from the movie directly) if you dont laugh at trailers for a comedy movie, why would you go see it? they're supposed to pick the best parts, after all.[/QUOTE] like, i'm not trying to defend this movie, it looks like a piece of shit but my point still stands you can say that it looks bad but not that it [B]is[/B] bad without actually seeing it edit: I guess this is pointless semantics (like what exactly is "seeing a movie" etc)
[QUOTE=damnatus;50702271]like, i'm not trying to defend this movie, it looks like a piece of shit but my point still stands you can say that it looks bad but not that it [B]is[/B] bad[/QUOTE]You could have a point there... if you didn't literally single out a post which involves someone possessing and reading the script. A whole lot of people who dislike this movie know what's in the movie. They know because what's in the movie leaked out ages ago; and then was verified by further leaks, people who got early screenings, and in some cases bothering to track down the novelization. The only really big factors missing at that point is visuals and sound, and the trailers actually fill in those blanks nicely enough. ...Or poorly enough, as the case may be.
[QUOTE=Wii60;50701720][video=youtube;a9_lhRqhkBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9_lhRqhkBw[/video][/QUOTE] This pretty much solidifies what I imagined that this movie was gonna end up; Either okay at best or downright 'stay-away-from-this-movie' bad. I'm probably just gonna pick this up for rent On Demand in a few months and see what the fuss is all about without giving them money.
On Demand still gives them a royalty IIRC
[QUOTE=usaokay;50704057]Buy a ticket to Secret Life of Pets and watch Ghostbusters instead.[/QUOTE] Why not just watch Secret Life of Pets instead? Are you some kind of species-ist?
[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L04DCCfirvk"]Last one.[/URL]
[QUOTE=TeamEnternode;50704033]On Demand still gives them a royalty IIRC[/QUOTE] Better or worse than buying a ticket just to see it once? Like, do they earn more money from On Demand rentals ($5.99 for three days) or a single $10 ticket?
snip
So, was Bridesmaids a good movie? Because that's all any of these people talk about when Paul Feig is mentioned in any article ever.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;50706096]So, was Bridesmaids a good movie? Because that's all any of these people talk about when Paul Feig is mentioned in any article ever.[/QUOTE] Bridesmaids was enjoyable. It was the first in the recent stretch of Paul Feig and Kristen Wig films and relied on good old tropes but was also a decent film in its own right but since then he's basically been rehashing the basic premises of that right into the ground.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;50706096]So, was Bridesmaids a good movie? Because that's all any of these people talk about when Paul Feig is mentioned in any article ever.[/QUOTE] It was The Hangover with chicks. It's a decent comedy, but it's nothing special.
no it wasn't a good movie
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;50706096]So, was Bridesmaids a good movie? Because that's all any of these people talk about when Paul Feig is mentioned in any article ever.[/QUOTE] Yeah it was pretty alright. Better than you'd think probably.
I thought Bridesmaids was pretty good. Kristen Wig and Maya Rudolph killed in it. Maya especially in the famous squatting in the middle of the road scene.
Ive got 2 free tickets to ghostbusters which i'm going to watch shortly, I expect the movie to be terrible after reading the reviews and watching the controversy videos. Wish me luck in not necking myself mid film. [B]*Edit[/B] Just got back.....It's not as terrible as i thought it would be, There are some moments which i really disliked and felt out of place like a few running gags although mainly kate mckinnon being overall annoying and cartoony.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vB53oFm.png[/IMG] bop edit: finally the only review that matters [video=youtube;5Dc8a16vfkw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dc8a16vfkw[/video]
[video=youtube;mCP937VRfI4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCP937VRfI4[/video]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.