[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50723799]There's only bias because everything they've put out has looked terrible.
The "misogynistic hate" against this movie is just a story cooked up to scare reviewers into praising it, and to sell tickets. Sony's using dirty tactics to sell their shitty movie, that's all there is to it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I know there's legitamate reason for bias, but my point still atanda.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50716453]Does anybody know how well this movie is doing so far at Box office?
Because if it does well despite the awful "Critics are sexist pigs" narrative being thrown around, then you're going to see these cheap tactics being used a lot more frequently in the future.[/QUOTE]
This well.
[img]http://img.pr0gramm.com/2016/07/16/0b787bf882571827.jpg[/img]
I bet people, "who write articles", will say ghostbusters isn't about the money, it's about the girl power that will inspire future generations. It's the message against misogyny and it's a stepping stone for women writers of 2018.
[url]http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2018+year+of+the+women+writers+[/url]
(easier to show what's in the google search, not condescending people who don't search)
I heard it wasn't bad.
I still wonder why the director thought [sp]the villain transforming himself into the Ghostbusters' logo ghost to spite the heroes and them killing him by crossing the beams to shoot him in the fucking dick[/sp] was a good idea
[QUOTE=RikohZX;50725674]I still wonder why the director thought [sp]the villain transforming himself into the Ghostbusters' logo ghost to spite the heroes and them killing him by crossing the beams to shoot him in the fucking dick[/sp] was a good idea[/QUOTE]
perverted form of feminism, look at the promoted facebook videos, "hey ladies, I just got off my bike to deliver something and I'm going to make an obscene sexists joke while bothin trying to pick you up and demean your intelligence. But I'm not going to just stop there, I'm going to keep going be like every other male in this movie to establish a narrative lends."
the idea of a (some but not all) female cast is cool but this is retarded and the sony are massive idiots for pulling the angle they did
It should have been 2 males and 2 females as the lead. There would have been more variety in chemistry and pretty much everybody would have been fine with it.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;50725674]I still wonder why the director thought [sp]the villain transforming himself into the Ghostbusters' logo ghost to spite the heroes and them killing him by crossing the beams to shoot him in the fucking dick[/sp] was a good idea[/QUOTE]
Because amy pascal would lead a castration witch hunt if she could, most likely.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50725319]This well.
[img]http://img.pr0gramm.com/2016/07/16/0b787bf882571827.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Points to the tumbleweed joke, that was pretty good.
[QUOTE=Shakma;50716350]Was it only me who thought for a second it was James Rolf review based on the name of the title?[/QUOTE]
Just you, James doesn't do "angry" reviews on movies, if he talks about movies it's usually informative or light hearted. Even with the movies he didn't like he'll usually try to be unbiased
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;50725746]It should have been 2 males and 2 females as the lead. There would have been more variety in chemistry and pretty much everybody would have been fine with it.[/QUOTE]
Chemistry was perfect with 3-4 men in the original though. If they made an actual good movie with 4 women that's not just a "girl power" gimmick I don't know why people wouldn't be fine with it.
[QUOTE=Psyke89;50723269]144$ million is an obscene budget, when you add local and international marketing plus remove the cut from the cinemas themselfes 500 million doesn't sound too out there.
[url]http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/paul-feig-ghostbusters-reboot-c-v-r.html[/url]
But I doubt revenue will meet match 100 millions.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't have to make $500 million to be profitable, it has to make $500m for Sony not to consider the movie a waste of money.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50726149]It doesn't have to make $500 million to be profitable, it has to make $500m for Sony not to consider the movie a waste of money.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, its gross revenue won't even cover production costs so we don't to debate that.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50725319]This well.
[img]http://img.pr0gramm.com/2016/07/16/0b787bf882571827.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
This brings me smug satisfaction I won't lie. Even when my gf and I went to zootopia WEEKS after it came out and on a monday nonetheless there had to have been 30+ people in the theater. And mind you we live in a smaller populated city too.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;50725858]Chemistry was perfect with 3-4 men in the original though. If they made an actual good movie with 4 women that's not just a "girl power" gimmick I don't know why people wouldn't be fine with it.[/QUOTE]
Fully agree, I truly don't think it's a matter of an all-female cast. An all female-cast would've worked great with good writing and less pandering.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;50722720]Oh yeah i remember some parts that were disturbing now.
[IMG]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18c0m0p5wkl5tjpg/original.jpg[/IMG]
The only thing that really stayed with me was that i was so fucking scared of this painting. Out of all the special effects of ghosts and stuff this thing was the scariest for me :v:[/QUOTE]
"He ees [b]VIGO![/b] You are like the buzzing of flies to heem!"
My mother wants to go see this with me but I'm urging her not to. I think she sees the movie as a fun reboot and hasn't really taken a deeper look into the numerous things it does wrong. I'm kinda surprised Ernie Hudson made a cameo. When I met him at Spooky Empire in 2015 Some fans asked him what he thought of the new movie, and he just looked down and shook his head. Everything Joe said about it being a cash grab by Sony for the Ghostbusters name, Ernie more or less said himself when he responded.
Like they said in the video, the real Ghostbusters sequel was the 09' game. I recommend it, it's pretty fun.
Edit: Watched a couple of other reviews online. Opinions differ but the main consensus with them and Joe's review is that the writing is shit tier.
[QUOTE=kingstead;50726445]This brings me smug satisfaction I won't lie. Even when my gf and I went to zootopia WEEKS after it came out and on a monday nonetheless there had to have been 30+ people in the theater. And mind you we live in a smaller populated city too.[/QUOTE]
My theaters are empty even after a week of a movie is out. Though this is only for Independence Day: Resurgence and not Finding Dory next door where I can hear the kids and the parents going crazy outside the door.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;50725746]It should have been 2 males and 2 females as the lead. There would have been more variety in chemistry and pretty much everybody would have been fine with it.[/QUOTE]
Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, and Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly [sp]or Rogen and Franco, it doesn't really matter[/sp].
You need actors with chemistry, not just random people that you think can play off of each other.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;50725746]It should have been 2 males and 2 females as the lead. There would have been more variety in chemistry and pretty much everybody would have been fine with it.[/QUOTE]
I somehow wouldn't trust 90% of the directors that would be considered for this film with this idea to be honest. There'd be some dumb bullshit about the team trying to get in each others pants or something.
[sp]I mean, it is played for laughs between Kevin and Erin, but with a split team I'm pretty certain that shit would be played seriously for no fucking reason[/sp]
I went to see it with some friends last night, it's not that bad a film. It's nothing mind blowing, but it's serviceable and has it's moments. I personally found the casting worked quite well, "sassy black woman", "cute nerd", "utter lunatic science person" and "overweight funny one" are well and truly in play for the first chunk of the film. But I can't remember it relying on these stereotypes so hard that it was annoying or distracting.
Quite a few call backs to the original film, which was to be expected. But I'm a bit of a sucker for that kind of thing and loved Skyfall for doing it. So it's not a mark against the film to me.
It was quite weird seeing a film that didn't last 5 fucking hours for the first time in a while. It doesn't overstay its welcome like a lot of the current big names have done for the last few years. The pacing seemed steady until the last part of the last act where it just kinda ramps it up to get it out of the way it seems.
Certainly a 5-6/10, it's watchable, it has good bits here and there. But it doesn't do anything particularly amazing and isn't really trying to at the same time. It's pretty much what you'd expect from a Feig film, dude is obsessed with all-female casts.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
And the theatre was strangely empty considering it was just an 8PM showing. Even the late arrivals only filled it up to around half capacity.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ithon;50725687]perverted form of feminism[/QUOTE]
(I think it was just a [sp]dick joke[/sp] brudda, you're thinking about this too hard)
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50727115]Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, and Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly [sp]or Rogen and Franco, it doesn't really matter[/sp].
You need actors with chemistry, not just random people that you think can play off of each other.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. If you think any successful comedy movie, the actors just happen to work with each other really well. Even if the writing is spectacular, the movie will just fall flat without it.
[QUOTE=J.Barnes;50726507]I'm kinda surprised Ernie Hudson made a cameo. When I met him at Spooky Empire in 2015 Some fans asked him what he thought of the new movie, and he just looked down and shook his head. .[/QUOTE]
He had to. Sony was threatening the original cast with litigation if they didnt.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50728759]He had to. Sony was threatening the original cast with litigation if they didnt.[/QUOTE]
Wow. Fuck Sony.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50728759]He had to. Sony was threatening the original cast with litigation if they didnt.[/QUOTE]
fucking what
how
I get they were trying to do the whole "women can do anything men can do" thing but wouldn't they have gotten their point across better if they had a mixed team with women working side by side with men, actually doing the things the men were doing?
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;50731849]fucking what
how[/QUOTE]
Something about contractual obligation. A load of bs is more like it.
[QUOTE=Pops;50732864]Something about contractual obligation. A load of bs is more like it.[/QUOTE]
how can they threaten him the worse they can do is not give him a bouns
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50732894]how can they threaten him the worse they can do is not give him a bouns[/QUOTE]
They were threatening to sue him.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50733012]They were threatening to sue him.[/QUOTE]
sue him for what not showing up to work?
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50733093]sue him for what not showing up to work?[/QUOTE]
Its America, you can sue anyone for anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.