|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by B5Erik
(Post 12805021)
No, I just want to make my point clear when someone else misrepresents it to mean something that I didn't imply.
Bigger, stronger people can carry heavy stuff more easily than smaller, weaker people. Why do some people have a problem with that? It's a fact. Get over it and let it go. I disagree. While Ghostbusters 2 wasn't nearly as laugh out loud funny as the original it was still fun. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by B5Erik
(Post 12805021)
Bigger, stronger people can carry heavy stuff more easily than smaller, weaker people. Why do some people have a problem with that? It's a fact. Get over it and let it go.
In a movie about busting ghosts, suspension of disbelief is in play. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Dan
(Post 12805031)
Have you watched it recently? I have. It's garbage, and I was a big fan of it for decades. The movie does not hold up, at least for me, anymore.
And I'd bet money that this new Ghostbusters movie will make it look like a classic in comparison. If this new one were as acceptable as G2 then I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it. Based on the two really bad trailers we've seen I don't believe for a second that this one will be nearly as good as G2, and if you hate G2 as much as you've said then you're really going to hate the remake (as will most people who watch it). |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
By the way, someone on Reddit posted the entire plot two months back, and it seemed accurate to what has been seen (right down to the dragon ghost/selfie situation). Not sure if that synopsis was linked on the locked thread.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
My take:
1) The ghosts look incredible. I love the color palette 2) The humor isn't working for me 3) I still believe 85% of the backlash about this film is due to the fact they cast women in the roles |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12804920)
If I had some kind of agenda I woulda been sucking the dick of the first trailer. Good luck finding a post where I defend it.
The first trailer was not only inept regardless of the content, the content itself was substandard. The fact that Sony rushed a revised trailer out that excised the disastrous Exorcist footage really says it all. It was even more troubling when the concert footage that replaced it was only slightly better. That concert footage holdover is really the only part of this new trailer that misses the mark. This one actually has effective comedy moments in it. Wiig holding onto the table warning people to leave NYC. The Michael McDonald joke. McCarthy saying its beautiful as Wiig gets drenched in slime. It's like a night-and-day difference. Of course, writing "even worse!" is a lot easier and far less controversial. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 12805051)
My take:
3) I still believe 85% of the backlash about this film is due to the fact they cast women in the roles Had it been all hot women, most of these critics would at least give the film a chance. Marginally effective humor and all. Fuckin' Knuckle draggers. :(:lol: |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by EddieMoney
(Post 12805086)
I think your standards for "comedy" are lower than most people's.
Your post does bring up a valid point: the bronze "high comedy standards" plaque all the haters are gonna receive is admittedly pretty fucking sweet-looking. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
“We have a gift – we see what no one else is willing to see. We do things others can’t do. If there’s a paranormal problem, we’re the ones to answer the call.” “Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. No job is too big! No fee is too big!” |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Giantrobo
(Post 12805100)
And specifically not HOT Women...
Had it been all hot women, most of these critics would at least give the film a chance. Marginally effective humor and all. Fuckin' Knuckle draggers. :(:lol: i mean were the original ghostbusters heartthrobs? |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by wishbone
(Post 12805105)
versusWhich comedy you gonna call?
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Giantrobo
(Post 12805100)
And specifically not HOT Women...
Had it been all hot women, most of these critics would at least give the film a chance. Marginally effective humor and all. Fuckin' Knuckle draggers. :(:lol: But if the film looks bad, it's going to be slagged for everything. It's not like everyone is only talking about the female angle. They're talking about the awful costumes, the lame car (what a stupid hood ornament), the bad dialogue. Everything is fair game when slagging a movie that looks like shit. If you showed me a picture of the craft services table I'd tell you there weren't enough roast beef sandwiches. This movie is the lame wildebeest and it's being preyed upon. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12805102)
I think your standards are infinity-times lower than mine.
Your post does bring up a valid point: the bronze "high comedy standards" plaque all the haters are gonna get is admittedly pretty fucking sweet-looking. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by wishbone
(Post 12805105)
versusWhich comedy you gonna call?
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by EddieMoney
(Post 12805112)
It'd be much easier if you would just admit that you are on an SJW, white knight crusade and stop defending what looks to almost everyone to be a shit movie. A movie that looks unfunny, not because the leads are women, but because it looks UNFUNNY.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
"NO! Admit that you are the arbitrarily defined thing that I say you are!"
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12805121)
No level-headed person would compare my posts to yours or the 2 or 3 other nuts in this thread and accuse me of being a drone to some larger agenda. The extent of my SJW-ness is not thinking casting female Ghostbusters is an act of war against the male gender.
It looks UNFUNNY. Not because it stars women. But because it looks UNFUNNY. Not because it is "an act of war against the male gender." But because it looks like absolute SHIT. You have made it quite clear that you believe this backlash is because of misogyny, when plenty of posters have simply stated the opposite. That it looks BAD. The only nut here is you, but I am sure it is difficult for you to see that in your crusade against the evil patriarchy. TL;DR - It simply looks like SHIT. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Of course I read it. You spelled "unfunny" and "shit" in all caps and everything.
You're a regular Pauline Kael. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
What's SJW?
And yea, this still looks terrible. Hopefully nobody else hires Feig and McCarthy after this. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Kal-El
(Post 12805143)
What's SJW?
And yea, this still looks terrible. Hopefully nobody else hires Feig and McCarthy after this. It's meant to be an insult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Mabuse
(Post 12805109)
As I've said repeatedly, James Cameron has made nothing but sci-fi and action fantasy films with strong female heroes and no one has ever complained once. It's never even been brought up. As long as the film is good no one says shit.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 12805221)
...played by hot women. Fine actors, sure. Still hot women.
None of them are in this movie, but there are a lot of them out there... |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 12805221)
...played by hot women. Fine actors, sure. Still hot women.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by B5Erik
(Post 12805234)
Yeah, but you don't have to be hot to kick ass - or be funny. There are plenty of funny women out there who aren't hot.
None of them are in this movie, but there are a lot of them out there... Again, I'm not saying that hot women can't be funny. But there is a higher level of distaste being directed at this movie than it deserves and it's not crazy to think that if it starred a bunch of hot women, it would be getting less. "Looks like shit but I'd watch Lizzie Caplan in anything :drool:" |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 12805241)
The reality is that plenty of people (including some on this forum) have criticized this movie because of the relative unattractiveness of the main cast. And any "dream casting" they have done instead inevitably includes a bunch of hot women.
And funny. I'm not getting the, "Funny," from anyone in this movie. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by B5Erik
(Post 12805252)
Ghostbusters wouldn't work with a bunch of hot women, any more than it would work with Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, and Tom Cruise playing the scientists. The whole point is that they're supposed to be ordinary, average looking people.
And funny. I'm not getting the, "Funny," from anyone in this movie. That last category could possibly be the biggest one. There's a palpable sense that it's somehow offensive for someone like Melissa McCarthy or Leslie Jones to exist and find success. The worst part is, I think that group is also the most unaware, but it's pretty apparent to the rest of us. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Another very good read, in my opinion.
And honestly: I’m glad it’s a reboot. I’m glad it’s not Ghostbusters 3, with our original heroes all looking bad and unable to recapture the magic and making the “franchise” one for three. I prefer a new thing that allows the original to remain as is, unsullied by continuously disappointing sequels. I don’t want ANY new Ghostbusters, but this reboot is definitely the best case scenario. One last note to the "Angry Video Game Nerd" and his friends: the original Ghostbusters was very important to you as a young man. Why can't you be big enough to let the new Ghostbusters be very important to a new generation of young women? Nobody's taking your Venkman away, they're just giving the other half of the population something they can look at and see a reflection of themselves. Wasn't that part of what was cool about watching Ghostbusters when you were young, that you could project yourself into this working class fantasy? Isn't it great that someone else who looks different than you do and who has a different life experience than you do can now have that same fun? |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12805273)
Nobody is doubting you find it unfunny. We just question your reasons. The sexism scale is actually pretty varied in regards to this movie. You have the people who openly hate woman and see them as inherently inferior, you have people who think they're not sexist because they think women can't wear backpacks, you have the people who would be fine with hot lady Ghostbusters and you have people with a subconscious aversion to physically-unattractive women who are portrayed as confident or successful.
That last category could possibly be the biggest one. There's a palpable sense that it's somehow offensive for someone like Melissa McCarthy or Leslie Jones to exist and find success. The worst part is, I think that group is also the most unaware, but it's pretty apparent to the rest of us. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Why can't you be big enough to let the new Ghostbusters be very important to a new generation of young women? |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Bluelitespecial
(Post 12805288)
Probably written by a white knight mangina. Most of us are tired of having every part of society and and pop culture taken away from us to appease the women.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Why can't you be big enough to let the new Ghostbusters be very important to a new generation of young women? Nobody's taking your Venkman away, they're just giving the other half of the population something they can look at and see a reflection of themselves. Wasn't that part of what was cool about watching Ghostbusters when you were young, that you could project yourself into this working class fantasy? Isn't it great that someone else who looks different than you do and who has a different life experience than you do can now have that same fun? LINK http://i.imgur.com/TsxzSnt.jpg LINK Looks like marketing didn't get that memo. :shrug: |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Looks like marketing didn't get that memo. :shrug: |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Hey, at least the boy on the packaging isn't white. That's some progress.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12805273)
Nobody is doubting you find it unfunny. We just question your reasons. The sexism scale is actually pretty varied in regards to this movie. You have the people who openly hate woman and see them as inherently inferior, you have people who think they're not sexist because they think women can't wear backpacks...
Many (most) women can wear heavy backpacks, no one said they couldn't. But a larger person can do so more easily without it having as much of a negative impact on mobility and speed. To deny that is laughable. I'm smaller than average, and know for a fact that someone bigger and stronger could handle that kind of a pack better than I could. Should I be offended if someone says so? I'm a huge fan of women who kick ass and hold their own against men. Michelle Yeoh in many roles she's played, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Black Widow in the Marvel movies, etc - I'm a big fan and supporter. So sue me if none of the new Ghostbusters (save for the one in the Ernie Hudson role) strike me as having anywhere near that physical capability, or the capability to be funny (none of them do). If they were funny then not being believable in the physicality of the roles wouldn't bother me nearly as much - but they aren't funny, so the whole thing is poorly cast. And from the trailer it seems pretty clear that the movie was poorly written as well. |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I dunno, I can't see girls wanting that junk anyway. I don't even think they are going to want to see the movie.
Besides, the 80s toys were better! http://i.imgur.com/z0klSRp.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VuqffzMg_v...uster+guns.jpg |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Bluelitespecial
(Post 12805288)
Probably written by a white knight mangina. Most of us are tired of having every part of society and pop culture taken away from us to appease the women.
The concept that men somehow own pop culture and women can't be in the club is so fucking ridiculous I don't actually believe you are a real person. :lol: And did your original Ghostbusters VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-ray/Digital copy explode or something when the first trailer hit for the reboot? |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
I'm guessing that there's probably a pink version of the proton pack that has a girl on the packaging and will be found in the girls aisle of the toy department.
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 12805273)
Nobody is doubting you find it unfunny. We just question your reasons. The sexism scale is actually pretty varied in regards to this movie. You have the people who openly hate woman and see them as inherently inferior, you have people who think they're not sexist because they think women can't wear backpacks, you have the people who would be fine with hot lady Ghostbusters and you have people with a subconscious aversion to physically-unattractive women who are portrayed as confident or successful.
That last category could possibly be the biggest one. There's a palpable sense that it's somehow offensive for someone like Melissa McCarthy or Leslie Jones to exist and find success. The worst part is, I think that group is also the most unaware, but it's pretty apparent to the rest of us. Awesome post. 100% on point! :up: |
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
Originally Posted by Dan
(Post 12805274)
|
Re: Ghostbusters (2016) - The Trailer
[QUOTE...played by hot women. Fine actors, sure. Still hot women. ][/QUOTE]
I must have missed something. In what planet have Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton ever been considered "hot"? [QUOTEThe reality is that plenty of people (including some on this forum) have criticized this movie because of the relative unattractiveness of the main cast. And any "dream casting" they have done instead inevitably includes a bunch of hot women.][/QUOTE] Did you ever think it was possible that maybe some of the actresses who were being thrown around were mentioned because they *gasp* have good comic timing and actually might be funny? For that since you and GURU are taking up the "RAH RAH SEXISM, GIRL POWER" stance just saying that people want certain women in because of attractiveness is pretty insulting to them. Nobody is doubting you find it unfunny. We just question your reasons. The sexism scale is actually pretty varied in regards to this movie. You have the people who openly hate woman and see them as inherently inferior, you have people who think they're not sexist because they think women can't wear backpacks, you have the people who would be fine with hot lady Ghostbusters and you have people with a subconscious aversion to physically-unattractive women who are portrayed as confident or successful. And did your original Ghostbusters VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-ray/Digital copy explode or something when the first trailer hit for the reboot? As for the new trailer, it still sucks. One part in it made me laugh, and that was the selfie stick scene. It just looks bad and since I'll be labeled as sexist otherwise here's why: -Leslie Jones just isn't funny. Her line readings area awful and she can't seem to talk in any way OTHER THAN LIKE THIS! -Yay instead of an Exorcist joke, were getting really cutting edge with a Jaws joke. -The rock concert scene looks awful. -The ghosts just look like CGI on steroids and look more like something from the Haunted Mansion then a Ghostbusters movie. -Melissa McCarthy's pelvic thrust. Oy -Wiig holding on to the table warning everyone to get out just comes across as bad and it would look just as stupid in the original movie. -The joke when Wiig was getting puked on of "Oh that's so beautiful" was just lame. The slimed joke worked in the first one because of how simply it was from Ray and Egon's reaction. And that's what this movie is mainly missing. The original had some slapstick in it, but what really made it funny and the parts people always mention are the one liners from it and how subtle they were. This just seems like any other stupid movie to come out in the last couple years that's trying to be funny. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.