Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Old 08-14-16, 04:02 PM
  #1201  
Senior Member
 
Matto1020's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 940
Received 51 Likes on 17 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Supermallet
Feig isn't denigrating men in the movie. He's gender swapping certain roles in order to highlight the inequities of the different genders in film. If you think that means he's attacking all men, that's on you. If you think that means he's attacking you, that's also on you.
I saw this terribly unfunny movie. Yes, Feig is absolutely "man bashing" in this movie. As has been stated, every male character in this flick is either a moron or a villain. Heck, even the Chinese food delivery guy is made out to be a prick because he can never get McCarthy's wonton ratio right (oh, the belly laughs) or even deliver food in a timely fashion when they live up stairs form him. And if that's not enough, they take down the main giant ghost villain by shooting him "where it hurts" causing him to fall over and into that portal.

He may be "gender swapping" but he does it with a big middle finger. There are COUNTLESS movies that have women in empowered roles without needing to cram it down your throat. Star Wars Episode VII. The Terminator series. Kill Bill. Alien. Black Widow in all of the Marvel movies. Heck, even all 50 of the Resident Evil movies they've made.

Originally Posted by Supermallet
As for the idea that this property shouldn't have had that message, why not? What is it about Ghostbusters that makes it an inherently male property? Nothing. The only reason you think this movie shouldn't have had that message is because you mistakenly think the message is about you. And it's not.
It's sad that the sole reason for this movie's existence is to push an agenda. None of the movies I listed above are pushing a "Woman Power" message as their main selling point. Instead they focus on creating a great story with a strong female lead. In Ghostbusters, not once, but TWICE do they read off the YouTube comments, "Aint no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts." They bring themselves up by tearing others down.

But let's face it, at the end of the day, everything that all us naysayers predicted came true. The movie is a box-office failure, and you can keep "fighting the good fight" all you want by defending this piece of trash movie, but the numbers don't lie.

This is Ghostbusters. A franchise that everyone either loves or enjoys. You don't meet many people who downright dislike the original movie. Sony could of knocked this out of the park reviving such a beloved franchise. Instead they used it as a publicity stunt that backfired in the range of $70 million loss.
Matto1020 is offline  
Old 08-14-16, 04:16 PM
  #1202  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,629
Received 496 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Supermallet
Repeating yourself endlessly does not make your arguments more convincing or salient. At this point, perhaps we should recap:

- You decide me this movie was a bad idea before it was released
And I was hardly alone in that assessment.

- You refused to see it
Because it was made clear that the style of humor was the kind that I absolutely hate. And the characters were the kind of characters I don't enjoy watching. You can't tell me I should watch a movie with a style of humor I hate and characters I wouldn't like...

- You've cherry picked through the reviews and responses, focusing only on the ones that reinforce the conclusions you came to before release and without seeing it
No, I'm pointing out reviews where the reviewer has similar tastes to me and explains why I wouldn't like it. At all. And the reviews back up my points about the movie. Even the positive reviews back up my points in some respect - it's lowbrow humor. I don't find bodily function jokes to be funny. At all. It's a shame that Feig went there with this movie.

- You have argued against and/or dismissed any review or response that disagreed with your assessment, doubling down and digging the hole deeper and deeper
And yet you have never once accepted the fact that it is clear that this movie uses the type of characters and humor that I have NEVER liked, and never will. The fact that it also dismisses men the way it does is just an added negative. It doesn't bother you, but it bothers me (and many other people - including women).

It doesn't seem that you're willing to listen to anyone who views this movie positively, or anyone who didn't have a knee jerk negative reaction. Again I assert that you are the person with the problem, fixating on a movie you refuse to see.
What can you tell me about the movie that I'll like about it? I hate that lowbrow humor, I hate bodily function humor, and I hate embarrassment humor. It's not funny to me. I hate Dumb and Dumber. I hate American Pie. I couldn't make it through either one of those movies, so knowing that, what is there in this movie that I'd enjoy? You haven't explained that once. You've just gone on the offensive trying to dismiss what the critics of this movie have said. Just generically saying, "It's funny and entertaining," isn't really giving us much to go on.

I'm sorry that Ghostbusters has made you feel so persecuted. Clearly, being a man, you face untold oppression the likes of which the world has never seen.
Come on, don't be ridiculous. I'm not oppressed. I've been through disappointments and inconveniences, but even though I have been told that I didn't get promotions because I'm too aggressive and threatening (while the exact same personality traits were described as being, "Assertive," when giving promotions to women) I know I still have a job and can always look for work elsewhere. But I've never once gotten a job because I was a male. Or gotten a promotion. When I've been in a position to do hiring I've hired women and minorities. I don't see skin color or gender as anything more than something to describe someone's appearance, just like hair color.

But even taking the gender issues out of the discussion the movie still uses a style of humor that I just don't like.

Last edited by B5Erik; 08-14-16 at 06:52 PM.
B5Erik is offline  
Old 08-14-16, 11:50 PM
  #1203  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,462
Likes: 0
Received 57 Likes on 52 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

It just wasn't a good movie. Period. And it would have been just as terrible if it was an all-male cast.
Double_Oh_7 is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 12:05 AM
  #1204  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,703
Received 286 Likes on 211 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

^ This.

If the movie had starred a bunch of men such as Adam Sandler & his crew, or some combo of Apatow people (Seth Rogen, James Franco, etc.), and had the same overall level of humor, it would have been savaged by critics though.
windom is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 07:01 AM
  #1205  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Very far away..
Posts: 5,017
Likes: 0
Received 89 Likes on 68 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by B5Erik
Why does the movie have to have a smart, noble, helpful male character? Because a lot of men in real life are like that, while none in the movie are. That's not saying, "Checklist," that's saying, "Why do you have so many men in the movie, and none are remotely worthy?" They're all bad in one way or another.
Who cares about shit like this!? Seriously. It's just a stupid comedy. Maybe you should focus more on being an actual man instead of getting worked up over such nonsense. That's for sure not how a noble and smart man would react. Holy shit
Gunde is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 07:08 AM
  #1206  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
covenant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 5,131
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

My girlfriend and I saw it this weekend, didn't plan on it, just had some free time and it was the next movie playing. Pretty funny, enjoyed the cameos, decent effects and 3D.
covenant is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 08:44 AM
  #1207  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,205
Received 1,253 Likes on 890 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by B5Erik
Really, then name me one male character who isn't a total airhead moron who isn't an asshole and is noble and helpful. Just one.

You've seen the movie, certainly you can name at least one male character who isn't loaded with negative characteristics.
Originally Posted by B5Erik
I asked Dan if he could name one, but he can't. Neither can you.
No, I can. But what's the point?
The tour guide in the first scene. The owner of the mansion. The entire rock band. The Homeland Security guys. The theatre manager. The Police Officer.
The mayor (maybe a jerk, but hardly 'not smart' and indeed 'helpful' in a "I'm not going to get in your way" way, by the end)

Great. None of those characters are "loaded with negative characteristics." Do they maybe have one negative characteristic each? Sure, maybe. Who fucking cares?!
Nearly every character in every movie ever has at least one negative characteristic.
Even the women in this film. Each of them has their flaws. So what?


And please, don't waste your time nitpicking on each character I named. Your opinion on them is worthless to me because YOU haven't seen it. Period.
You have over five dozen posts in this thread alone... for a movie you haven't seen... trying to convince who? the lurkers? that this movie hates men? This coming from the guy who spent paragraphs upon paragraphs trying to explain why it's impossible for these women to carry proton packs.
If your goal is to spread some sort of perceived truth about Ghostbusters... you should stick to reddit or 4chan or youtube comments, where you can shape the minds of all those teenage boys at risk of falling into the "Social Justice Warrior" hive mind.


And in case it wasn't clear enough:

Originally Posted by B5Erik
It's not just about me - it's about all men. It couldn't have been clearer. There isn't a single worthy man in the movie.

Subtly telling half your audience that they aren't worthy is a bad idea.
Originally Posted by B5Erik
Why does the movie have to have a smart, noble, helpful male character? Because a lot of men in real life are like that, while none in the movie are. That's not saying, "Checklist," that's saying, "Why do you have so many men in the movie, and none are remotely worthy?" They're all bad in one way or another.
Worthy? Holy shit, man. You really need to take a step back from thinking about Ghostbusters so damn much.
It's a comedy.
About people busting ghosts.
And you're complaining that the four women are getting all the praise for being noble while the poor men are relegated to minor characters and/or they "just aren't noble enough!"

Anyway, I'm done responding to your shitposting; and that's exactly what you're doing. Over five dozen posts, claiming that this movie outright hates 50% of its audience, even though you haven't seen it. I'm surprised the mods are allowing it, honestly, but whatever. Matto1020 has the same opinion as you, apparently. I think he's wrong too, but at least he's seen the fucking movie.

I don't understand why a grown-ass man is spending so much time and effort shitting on something that has zero effect on his life. You've spent more time reading other peoples' opinions and writing posts about a movie you refuse to see than it would have taken you to see it yourself or to do anything anything remotely productive or fulfilling instead.
It boggles my mind. I did that kind of shit in my teens/20's, when I had too much spare time, and no love for most things in my life. I couldn't even imagine how bored/hateful you must be to be doing that as a full-fledged adult.
Dan is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:01 AM
  #1208  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,629
Received 496 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Dan
I couldn't even imagine how bored/hateful you must be to be doing that as a full-fledged adult.
You can't? Look in the mirror. Your entire post above was as angry and hateful on a personal level as anything I've read in a while.

I'm criticizing a movie. You're attacking someone on a personal level because they have a different opinion than you about a movie. Who's more hateful?
B5Erik is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:03 AM
  #1209  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,205
Received 1,253 Likes on 890 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

I made no personal attacks whatsoever. I assure you, my post comes from a place of love and respect.
Dan is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:05 AM
  #1210  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,205
Received 1,253 Likes on 890 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Anyway, for those who want to read an extensive write-up about the film from a guy who has seen it, Matt Zoller Seitz at rogerebert.com did a good one. Heavy spoilers throughout.

http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/womens...w-ghostbusters
Dan is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:06 AM
  #1211  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,629
Received 496 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Dan
I made no personal attacks whatsoever. I assure you, my post comes from a place of love and respect.
Sure it does. Keep telling yourself that.
B5Erik is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:13 AM
  #1212  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,629
Received 496 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

You know, Dan, unless you were at least 14 years old when Ghostbusters came out in 1984 you can't understand how a lot of long time fans feel about the franchise.

It would be like remaking Back To The Future with gender reversals. Martina McFly and Dr. Elicia Brown. Remaking it at all would be controversial, but doing the gender change would then be viewed suspiciously by long time fans in terms of motivation for making such a change. And if they dumbed down the type of humor in the movie as well? You'd get a ton of angry fans, just like with Ghostbusters.
B5Erik is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:15 AM
  #1213  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,205
Received 1,253 Likes on 890 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

I can't be a real fan because I'm not old enough to meet your self-imposed criteria. Got it.

The above post, for those reading, is a perfect example of what is wrong with "geek culture" in a nutshell. If you don't meet some obscurely-defined idea of what a single person thinks qualifies you as a 'real fan' then you just don't understand how upset we are!!
Dan is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:21 AM
  #1214  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,629
Received 496 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Dan
I can't be a real fan because I'm not old enough to meet your self-imposed criteria. Got it.
No, I'm just saying you can't really understand because you weren't there. It's common sense, really.

You can't possibly have the same connection to the movie because it was a phenomenon, culturally. It was a specific time when that phenomenon took place. It was finite, and lasted only a couple of years. By the time Ghostbusters II came out the phenomenon had ended and the original was just a beloved movie that meant a hell of a lot to the fans who experienced that phenomenon.

The same would be true of the original Star Wars or Jaws. If you weren't there you just don't get it. You can read about it, but the feeling that was there at the time was lightning in a bottle.

The above post, for those reading, is a perfect example of what is wrong with "geek culture" in a nutshell.
And the above comment is exactly what's wrong societally with the internet - a lot of people don't know how to be civil anymore. Hiding behind their keyboards people feel free to post mean spirited things that they wouldn't dare say to someone's face. Sad.
B5Erik is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:24 AM
  #1215  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,205
Received 1,253 Likes on 890 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by B5Erik
No, I'm just saying you can't really understand because you weren't there. It's common sense, really.
Quoting for posterity.

Oh, the delicious irony in the context of this thread.

But I guess folks who were 13 years old at the time GB came out are shit out of luck. They just weren't there.
Dan is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:33 AM
  #1216  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
jjcool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 7,675
Received 130 Likes on 104 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Wow. This thread is a whole hell of a lot funnier than that turd of a movie was. One has to love the social justice warriors continue to attempt to defend what is essentially a box office bomb at this point. Certainly the only reason people didnt go to see it is because it stars women. Not that it was a shitty movie. The only thing missing from the thread at this point is that askew troll.
jjcool is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:36 AM
  #1217  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,629
Received 496 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Dan
Quoting for posterity.

Oh, the delicious irony in the context of this thread.

But I guess folks who were 13 years old at the time GB came out are shit out of luck. They just weren't there.
Wow, someone's irritable this morning. And last night. And last week...

Fine, maybe someone who was 13 would get it, but that person would have to be old enough and mature enough to really comprehend what was going on was not the norm for a new hit movie. Not every movie has that kind of response, societally, and when you're too young to have that perspective you just can't understand. So the actual age may vary some, but the fact that you have to have experience seeing many hits that didn't become cultural phenomena to appreciate one that did become a cultural phenomenon.

Oh, and I knew you'd bring up the, "Delicious irony," in the context of this thread. You can understand the type of humor used, and the agenda that people like Amy Pascal and Paul Feig clearly had with the making of Ghostbusters 2016 through researching online. That's just fact finding. FEELING a cultural phenomenon requires being there and having the life experience to know how unusual that is.
B5Erik is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:37 AM
  #1218  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Abob Teff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 29,911
Received 1,330 Likes on 906 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

To sum this up for those who lost interest ...

B5Erik can't understand the new Ghostbusters because he hasn't seen it.

Dan can't understand the POV of fans of the original because he isn't old enough to have experienced it.

In the midst of that smokescreen, Double-Oh-7 and windom swept in for the win.
Abob Teff is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:39 AM
  #1219  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,629
Received 496 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by jjcool
Wow. This thread is a whole hell of a lot funnier than that turd of a movie was. One has to love the social justice warriors continue to attempt to defend what is essentially a box office bomb at this point. Certainly the only reason people didnt go to see it is because it stars women. Not that it was a shitty movie. The only thing missing from the thread at this point is that askew troll.
Yeah, I'm really surprised at the effort people are making in defending this turd of a movie. And how worked up and angry they seem to get. It's like you're kicking helpless, cute little puppies if you criticize this movie and the people who made it (and, especially, if you question their motivations).
B5Erik is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:40 AM
  #1220  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,629
Received 496 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Abob Teff
To sum this up for those who lost interest ...

In the midst of that smokescreen, Double-Oh-7 and windom swept in for the win.
You know what? I can live with that. I agree with both of them.
B5Erik is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:45 AM
  #1221  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,205
Received 1,253 Likes on 890 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

I'm not even defending the movie. I couldn't care less if people who saw it hated it. I'm only pointing out the fact that you claim "anyone under 14 in 1984 couldn't possibly understand!" while also saying you totally understand exactly what the movie is without seeing it.

They say the best way to ruin comedy is to explain it. I think we can add "obsessively researching every detail about it to ensure it either does or doesn't match our taste" to the list.

And Abob....
edit: but Gunde deserves a star for recognition.
Dan is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 09:52 AM
  #1222  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,629
Received 496 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Dan
I'm not even defending the movie. I couldn't care less if people who saw it hated it. I'm only pointing out the fact that you claim "anyone under 14 in 1984 couldn't possibly understand!" while also saying you totally understand exactly what the movie is without seeing it.
As I noted above, you can't research a feeling, but you can research facts.

A cultural phenomenon is a feeling as much as anything else - a feeling that people at the time share. If you're not old enough to truly comprehend what's going on as being different from the norm you aren't going to understand it. And if someone wasn't there at all, there is no way to explain it adequately for that person to really, "Get it." That's not an outrageous statement, just common sense.

And I noted before that the lowbrow humor used in Ghostbusters 2016 is the kind of humor that I hate. I find it stupid, not funny. It would be ruined whether I've read someone's explanation of it or not - it's just not funny to me. And being Ghostbusters it's not just some stupid comedy to me. It's a franchise that means a lot to me and the new version was ruined by hack moviemakers.

Have you really never seen a trailer and thought to yourself that it looked stupid instead of funny? And if you did, did you go to see the movie anyway?
B5Erik is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 10:00 AM
  #1223  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Abob Teff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 29,911
Received 1,330 Likes on 906 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

I think they nailed it.

I've been on record saying it is neither as bad or as good as many claim. I fully agree with them that it made no difference if the characters were men or women -- the script was just lazy and the marketing was simply awful. Add to that the shadow of a classic and you are in a lose-lose situation.

That said, had it starred an Adam Sandler (or actors of that ilk) I would not have seen it because I know that I do not care for them at all (to B5Erik's point). I don't have much experience with the women who are in it, so I gave it a chance based on the (middling) reviews here. The trailers did not excite me terribly and certainly did the actresses no justice.

So what was the result IMO? I laughed. It was on the low range of "OK". It was better than GB2, however it did not inspire me to seek out any other work by the talent involved. It makes me believe the studio heads either wanted a shitstorm or were completely incompetent. It makes me realize modern Hollywood has no respect for the past or understanding of its roots like a modern primadona athlete who comes in and shits on the history that allowed him (or her) to reach that point.
Abob Teff is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 10:13 AM
  #1224  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 44,064
Received 1,801 Likes on 1,117 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by B5Erik
And I noted before that the lowbrow humor used in Ghostbusters 2016 is the kind of humor that I hate. I find it stupid, not funny. It would be ruined whether I've read someone's explanation of it or not - it's just not funny to me. And being Ghostbusters it's not just some stupid comedy to me. It's a franchise that means a lot to me and the new version was ruined by hack moviemakers.
I was 8 when Ghostbusters came out in theaters, I saw it and I loved it. As I've said many times, it's easily in my top 5 favorite movies of all time. It's one of the only movies I can pretty much recite verbatim from beginning to end. My wife and I watched it while she was timing her contractions for our first child because it is one of the few movies that both of us will watch together at any time for any reason. For a recent gift, my wife got me the Ecto-1 LEGO set and I spent the rest of the afternoon happily putting it together. We just showed it to our kids for the first time a few months ago and they loved it too.

Am I allowed to think the new movie was OK? My wife liked it too. Also, to be clear, we saw it. Which is where my opinion on it comes from. I didn't have to read anything or watch a single YouTube video to come to that opinion either.
Draven is offline  
Old 08-15-16, 10:19 AM
  #1225  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,205
Received 1,253 Likes on 890 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by B5Erik
As I noted above, you can't research a feeling, but you can research facts.

A cultural phenomenon is a feeling as much as anything else - a feeling that people at the time share.
Trust me, I get it. I fully understand the concept. I was pointing out the absurdity of the age you chose to tie that to.

If you're not old enough to truly comprehend what's going on as being different from the norm you aren't going to understand it. And if someone wasn't there at all, there is no way to explain it adequately for that person to really, "Get it." That's not an outrageous statement, just common sense.
That's great. It doesn't change the fact that people born in the late 70's and early 80's CAN and ARE fans of the franchise, just as much, if not moreso, than you, even if they missed "the phenomenon" as defined within your goal posts. You were one of the folks that pointed to that Angry Video Game Nerd as one of your voices of reason. There was a lot of talk about how he was a BIG fan and he had a right to be offended, etc. etc.
Dude was 4 when GB came out.

And I noted before that the lowbrow humor used in Ghostbusters 2016 is the kind of humor that I hate. I find it stupid, not funny. It would be ruined whether I've read someone's explanation of it or not - it's just not funny to me.
Great. So why 60+ posts about how much you hate its existence? I get being mad about something (I thought the TMNT reboots, animated and live-action, looked like trash and never saw them), but I moved on.
And being Ghostbusters it's not just some stupid comedy to me. It's a franchise that means a lot to me
I'm not going to go into detail about my personal connection with the franchise, as I've done before. It's not a stupid comedy to me either. It and BTTF were/are hugely important to me and my childhood. And while I missed the 1984 'feeling' since I was definitely too young at that explicit moment, I sure as hell felt it as I grew up and watched the movies and cartoons dozens and dozens of times, and played with all the toys, and etc. etc.
Your experience was different than mine, but that doesn't make it more valid, and neither of us are in a place to claim that this new movie hates ALL men and ALL original GB fans. That's absurd.

and the new version was ruined by hack moviemakers.
No, the new version EXISTS because of those moviemakers, for better or worse. Obviously, you feel it's for the worse. I feel that it's better than GB2, so

Have you really never seen a trailer and thought to yourself that it looked stupid instead of funny? And if you did, did you go to see the movie anyway?
I thought the trailers for Popstar were horrendous. I LOVED that movie.
I thought Drop Dead Gorgeous looked like garbage. It's one of my favourite "fake documentary" films ever.
I thought I'd love TED, but it was utter trash (sorry, fans).

It goes both ways. And no one's forcing you to see it. But if you're going to spend months/years agonizing about how much you hate a movie's mere existence because it isn't what you felt you deserved to get? I don't know man. That's just... strange to me.
Dan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.