They were definitely more like that when they were younger. Now that they are picking their own entertainment, they've moved away from movies. It's all about the YouTube clips these days.

As in, I've only seen Frozen once and that was in the theater. And we own it. And I liked it. They just don't want to sit down and watch a 90-minute anything. Which is fine with me, actually. I didn't do what my parents liked to do and they don't have to do what I liked. But I can also see they won't have the same attachments to the movies of their childhood as I still do.

My parents are still traumatized by the amount of times I watched "Yor, the Hunter from the Future," "Krull," and "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn."

I don't think they'll ever recover.

Oh man, I was right there with you on Krull. Hell of a lot of Beastmaster too.

Jesus. Some of you parents here are just bitches with your kids. Fuck that. My dad or mum would let me watch something once and have me move the fuck on. It's a shared household. None of that bullshit you lot let your kids pull. Fuck that.

You're a fucking adult. Take command. Jesus.

Says he with no kids.

You're right, though. Fuck it. Me and the kid are gonna watch Human Centipede tonight, and if she doesn't like it she can go to bed with NO stories!

Krull certainly isn't a classic, but I watched the hell out of it when I was a kid.

1) Calm down
2) I have more than one TV
3) I didn't sit and watch the movie with them every time. I was often reading or working on another project, or in another part of the house watching what I want, or outside working in the yard, or 1 billion other things

As a parent, having uninterrupted time to accomplish the things you want to do is a really great luxury. My own parents worked on a lot of projects too, so when I was watching Ghostbusters for the 100th time, it's not like they were being denied the TV.

Is this bluelitespecial?

No, I am not the Angry Video Game nerd, I saw that on youtube, and thought about posting it here. But that video is very well done, and explains everything wrong with this movie, without it being about hating it for being a gender bender.

I'd say the Angry Video Game Nerd makes a more logical argument (though still flawed. I don't think getting Murray back in a jumpsuit to pass the torch was ever likely) than any of BLS'.

But the way he says "review" makes me want to discount everything he says.

To hell with Dr Spock, Dr Snake is now my go to for parenting advice.

I'm convinced he's joking entirely. I mean... that Star Trek V thing... in the frame for the entirety of this video...

I agree with them on that I am pissed we now have to refer to the REAL Ghostbusters movie as "The Original" or "The 1984 version".

Meanwhile, fans of monkey Ghostbusters have to cry their own bitter tears.

Uh oh, don't post that in the Sequel/Reboot thread. He referred to SW:TFA as both.

Brad Jones(The Cinema Snob) on youtube has probably the best response on why he won't review this version of Ghostbusters, this is an awesome watch.

I loved watching the old Angry Video Game Nerd's videos. He voiced all my childhood anguish over crappy and unfair video games.

I agree with him on the ghosts seen in the trailer. "Haunted Mansion" was the first thing that came to my mind when seeing it.

His argument about having no connection the original film being "a shameless attempt to bank on the name" is pretty weak. 1983's Scarface and 1986's The Fly were remakes/reboots that were just as good, if not better than the originals, and used the same titles, and had NO continuity to the original films. And the studio is not taking advantage of title alone. Slimer, Ecto-1, the proton packs are all featured. The logo is the same, they have similar uniforms.

It's also funny that he argues that calling it something "stupid" like Ghostbusters: Re-energized or Ghostbusters: The Next Generation would have been better than simply calling it "Ghostbusters."

Seems some people really give too much of a fuck in not giving a fuck to watch a film.

Was? WAS? It IS a classic!

That won't happen. It's only been like 9 months since the shitty Vacation sequel/reboot/shitpile and nobody has any doubts about what film is being referred to when you say something like, "I love Vacation, it makes me laugh every time I watch it.

This Ghostbusters will be instantly forgotten. Its reputation for being hated will probably be remembered longer than the film itself, and even then I give it 6 months, tops.

The Star Trek V thing is just a standee he has because he has his basement set up like an old school rental store and just has various things like that.

I dunno I do kind of agree with what he's saying though. Sony is definitely banking on the name value the franchise has drawing in bigger crowds. Yeah it is a Ghostbusters film but the first trailer kind of made it seem like its a sequel which it really isn't and was sort of misleading.

I think all he meant is that it would have been better to differentiate it by calling it something slightly different or had it used a subtitle so it isn't called Ghostbusters again.

Yeah, but that's case with every remake. That alone doesn't discredit it's integrity. They do remakes because there's already an established fanbase/potential audience, or familiar with the title, so they don't have to spend extra advertising dollars on public awareness.
And it's not like Jem, where they take an 80s cartoon property about a pop singer with superhero granted powers by a sentient computer, and turn it into a conventional teen movie.
If it was about two women who are mediums and exorcise the dead spirits from people's homes, or if it as a drama about dealing with the ghosts of the pasts, and they called either of those films "Ghostbusters" then the AVN would have a point.

Agreed, but the rest of the trailer pretty much implies that these four women are the first ones to create the idea of a company that deals in busting ghosts.

Like I said, most people don't have a problem with Cronenberg's The Fly, or DePalma's Scarface. Why should the title of "Ghostbusters" for a remake of Ghostbusters be any different? And wouldn't using a subtitle like Ghostbusters: The Next Generation imply it's a sequel and not a remake?
And they can't call it something different, like Ghost Exterminators, or The Frighteners because they're clearly using the same things the original Ghostbusters used: no ghost logo, proton packs, Ecto-1, etc.

To your last point, I would say that the difference is that Ghostbusters is much more well known and beloved than the examples you gave. Granted there probably are remakes I'm not thinking of that are as classic and use the same name but I get what James is saying. A subtitle isn't completely necessary but I think if it put out there in the title that it's not the exact same name it would have helped. I don't think a subtitle would have implied a sequel either as the only sequel in the franchise thus far is labeled with a number.

I'm not familiar with either, are the original films cult classics, huge successes or were highly regarded?

If not, it seems like an apples and oranges comparison.

Bad example with the original Scarface. But as far as the original "The Fly," starring Vincent Price, it was a commercial success, and became a cult classic. I have never seen the film in my life, but even I know about the "Help me...help me..." scene. My parents saw the original, remembered it fondly, and they also saw the remake, and I never remember them criticizing it anyway.