# Ghostbusters reboot



## Crispy (Mar 3, 2016)

Releases 15th July in the UK

Trailer just came out:


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 3, 2016)

slimer 

bet the cultural mraists will be shitting a brick on the gender reversal here.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 3, 2016)

Looks delightfully silly, but at least it's not yet another Marvel/super hero CGI bore fest


----------



## mwgdrwg (Mar 3, 2016)

"30 years ago". Way to make me feel old!

Liked the trailer though


----------



## zoooo (Mar 3, 2016)

It looks so good. I want to be the one with the goggles that licks the guns, please.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

My god that looks just awful!


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> slimer
> 
> bet the cultural mraists will be shitting a brick on the gender reversal here.



Of course, that's been going on since it was announced over a year ago.

That said, I've never been a huge fan and thought the only thing which made all the silliness in the original work was the irreverent quality Bill Murray brought to it.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 3, 2016)

Looks entertaining enough, but will probably hinge on the interplay between the characters, they struck gold the first time around with the chemistry between the leads, and it never felt like a straight out comedy in the way this appears to be going.

Kate McKinnon is great on SNL though and I'm looking forward to seeing her in a decent role.

I'm still trying to work out whether it's a reboot or continuation, the director has previously said reboot but that trailer is confusing as fuck in that regard.


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

The Octagon said:


> Looks entertaining enough, but will probably hinge on the interplay between the characters, they struck gold the first time around with the chemistry between the leads, and it never felt like a straight out comedy in the way this appears to be going.
> 
> Kate McKinnon is great on SNL though and I'm looking forward to seeing her in a decent role.
> 
> I'm still trying to work out whether it's a reboot or continuation, the director has previously said reboot but that trailer is confusing as fuck in that regard.


There isn't a clear line between these things. Re-boot is really a marketing term for "Same old thing, but all new !". Reboots can be a continuation, like for instance Star Trek. They had an all new cast as the old crew, but they also wheeled out the original Spock.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 3, 2016)

Reno said:


> Of course, that's been going on since it was announced over a year ago.
> 
> That said, I've never been a huge fan and thought the only thing which made all the silliness in the original work was the irreverent quality Bill Murray brought to it.


I always liked it, was banned from seeing 1&2 as a kid but hit them pitch perfect time round a mates in early teens. Yes murray is funny but egon and the mentalness of it all were great. We'll see if this one delivers, It doesn't have the nostalgia chips to cash for me like Force Awakens did cos I found it great as comedy but never loved it more than buying a slimer sticker.


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I always liked it, was banned from seeing 1&2 as a kid but hit them pitch perfect time round a mates in early teens. Yes murray is funny but egon and the mentalness of it all were great. We'll see if this one delivers, It doesn't have the nostalgia chips to cash for me like Force Awakens did cos I found it great as comedy but never loved it more than buying a slimer sticker.


I was already in my 20s when it came out, so probably too old. I don't mind it, it just didn't make much of an impression.

The one thing I found interesting is that despite being a broad comedy, Ghostbusters appears to have been influenced by Lovecraft and is quite true to his universe. I used to read him when I was in my teens.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 3, 2016)

Reno said:


> There isn't a clear line between these things. Re-boot is really a marketing term for "Same old thing, but all new !". Reboots can be a continuation, like for instance Star Trek. They had an all new cast as the old crew, but they also wheeled out the original Spock.



Of course these things are fluid, but the director explicitly called it a 'hard reboot' in a completely new universe, while the trailer people clearly didn't get that message in favour of nostalgia ("30 years ago, Four scientists... etc").

Not a big thing and I'll reserve judgement, but seems a little broader and more slapstick than I would have hoped for.


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

The Octagon said:


> Of course these things are fluid, but the director explicitly called it a 'hard reboot' in a completely new universe, while the trailer people clearly didn't get that message in favour of nostalgia ("30 years ago, Four scientists... etc").
> 
> Not a big thing and I'll reserve judgement, but seems a little broader and more slapstick than I would have hoped for.


I believe most of the surviving original cast make an appearance in this and it's the same fire station.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 3, 2016)

Reno said:


> I believe most of the surviving original cast make an appearance in this and it's the same fire station.



Was just reading that apparently they may have filmed 2 roles, one as new character cameos and one as their original roles, this information does not help my confusion


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> bet the cultural mraists will be shitting a brick on the gender reversal here.



Ooh I do hope so, it's so funny when they throw their toys out the pram.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 3, 2016)

Needs a trap remix of the theme tune


----------



## Santino (Mar 3, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ooh I do hope so, it's so funny when they throw their toys out the pram.


 


Gromit said:


> My god that looks just awful!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 3, 2016)

Yeah I just spotted Gromit's contribution after I posted


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 3, 2016)

there should be a parable about swine arriving before the pearls are cast


----------



## zoooo (Mar 3, 2016)




----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 3, 2016)

Any excuse to post my new favourite picture.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing this. I don't think I'll like it as much as the original, but I agree about being excited to see Kate McKinnon in something, anything really...


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

To clarify I don't give a shit that they've switched it to women. Its a really clever market ploy actually. Well done.
The effects budget looks alright.
They've copied many elements of the original with the street wise black person muscling in by bribing them with access to a car etc. We have the practical scientist, the more theoretical book smart one and the zany one. Yeah its all there.

Then we come to the humour. Thats what looks dreadful.

You speak first no i speak you speak, oh hilarious.
Look i'm wearing a wacky wig and hat, how hilarious.
The goo got in all the cracks! Titter. (some people could carry this joke off, she didn't)
The ghost is gone but I'm still shouting and slapping. Ho ho ho.

Melissa McCarthy was funny in Bridesmaids and Tammy and everything else she has done has been shite. I mean utter dogshit.
Kristen Wiig looks like she couldn't act her way out of a cardboard box. Because it would be hurting her own kind.... cardboard.
Don't know who the other two are.

There are better comedy actresses out there. Amy Schumer for one.

The trailer is inaccurate as well, Four scientists didn't save the city. It was technically three scientists. Ernie Hudson wasn't a scientist.


----------



## zoooo (Mar 3, 2016)

Gromit said:


> The trailer is inaccurate as well, Four scientists didn't save the city. It was technically three scientists. Ernie Hudson wasn't a scientist.



From Wiki :


> In the original script for _Ghostbusters_, Winston Zeddemore was intended to be the smartest and most capable of the Ghostbusters, a former Marine with multiple degrees and a Ph.D., making him more suited for the job than the founding three Ghostbusters. However, in the final screenplay none of these qualifications were mentioned.



Which is interesting! (And something I didn't know.)


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

zoooo said:


> From Wiki :
> 
> 
> Which is interesting! (And something I didn't know.)


Common narrative method. Have one layman for the experts to explain things to. This provides a mechanism to pass info to the audience that in a normal situation wouldn't be vocalised.

Don't cross the streams isn't a line that would ever need to be uttered if they all knew the science etc.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 3, 2016)

Ghostbusters reboot: London 2016 edition


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 3, 2016)

zoooo said:


> From Wiki :
> 
> 
> Which is interesting! (And something I didn't know.)



Can't help but notice from the trailer that the black ghostbuster in this new one also appears to be the only non-scientist 

Attention Hollywood: black scientists do exist.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 3, 2016)

Gromit said:


> My god that looks just awful!



You're right.  A 'PC remake' with a dubstep remix of the original tune.   Mind you, I wouldn't bother with the original again either.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 3, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can't help but notice from the trailer that the black ghostbuster in this new one also appears to be the only non-scientist
> 
> Attention Hollywood: black scientists do exist.



Yeah, that's one thing that could have been changed from the original. Should have, in fact. It's painfully obvious. "Sassy, streetwise black woman."


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 3, 2016)

"PC remake" lol.

Wanker.


----------



## Santino (Mar 3, 2016)

2 for 2.


----------



## The Boy (Mar 3, 2016)

So predictable it's painful, innit?


----------



## mentalchik (Mar 3, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> You're right.  A 'PC remake' with a dubstep remix of the original tune.   Mind you, I wouldn't bother with the original again either.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yeah, that's one thing that could have been changed from the original. Should have, in fact. It's painfully obvious. "Sassy, streetwise black woman."



It was one of the things i was going to point out as awful but well they were copying from the original. 
It needs a street wise / straight man but they could have been white and the engineer could have been black. Would have been better I agree.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 3, 2016)

The first film is one of my favourite films because I am a cheap, shallow human being.

I can't stand Paul Feig films, I just don't like the comedy. This looks like a parody. Bah.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

Balbi said:


> The first film is one of my favourite films because I am a cheap, shallow human being.
> 
> I can't stand Paul Feig films, I just don't like the comedy. This looks like a parody. Bah.



You men's rights activist!!!

3 for 3.


----------



## camouflage (Mar 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> slimer
> 
> bet the cultural mraists will be shitting a brick on the gender reversal here.



The manosphere's gonna be pissed.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 3, 2016)

I wanted to like it, having an all women team is a good idea. I don't though, but it's not because of the cast


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

From IMDB :

On the topic aul Feig - I don't think it's fair for him to call the Ghostbusters criticism mysoginistic

My criticism isn't based on an all-female cast. It has to do with the fact that it's being made by a talentless hack like Paul Feig.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 3, 2016)

Gromit said:


> From IMDB :
> 
> On the topic aul Feig - I don't think it's fair for him to call the Ghostbusters criticism mysoginistic
> 
> My criticism isn't based on an all-female cast. It has to do with the fact that it's being made by a talentless hack like Paul Feig.



MISANDRY!


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 3, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> "PC remake" lol.
> 
> Wanker.



It's a by-committee film, dreamed up by money-men; no different from 99% of multiplex films really.  I'd settle for a good film rather than one that ticks the diversity boxes (or has an updated dubstep theme tune... or is overflowing with special effects... or is a remake/reboot).  If people think this is revolutionary, they're easily pleased IMO.  If you want to see strong female characters (or just better written characters generally), watch more indie films.  More Winter's Bone, less Hunger Games, please.


----------



## camouflage (Mar 3, 2016)

zoooo said:


>



I have a problem with this, the mug should be labelled Misogynist Fuckwit Tears. It's not like you get a complementary bag of gynophobia with yer cock an balls or something.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

The all female lead cast is a great idea and i think it came about something like this:

Seen all these campaigns to encourage women to be scientists. You know the This is what a woman scientist looks like memes n shit.
Yeah.
Why don't why do a film with women scientists.
Sure.
But not the sexy, removes her glasses and releases her hair super model scientist like in The Saint and shit like that.
Normal every day women?
Yeah.
It will have to be a comedy then. (obviously this is where the idea goes all wrong)
Obvs!
Comedy with scientists, how about Ghostbusters?
Perfect. The people moaning about us changing a beloved original can be shouted down as misogynists which will get us extra publicity. Win win.
Lets do  it.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

Reno said:


> Of course, that's been going on since it was announced over a year ago.
> 
> That said, I've never been a huge fan and thought the only thing which made all the silliness in the original work was the irreverent quality Bill Murray brought to it.



Sigourney Weaver, Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd were great in it.
Its the only film that Rick Moranis is bearable in which must prove some sort of genius.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 3, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Releases 15th July in the UK
> 
> Trailer just came out:



That looks absolutely awful


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

If i had to cast this remake using their female scientist idea i'd go with:

Directors: Cohen Brothers

Amy Schumer - The wacky one
Isla Fisher - The engineer
Wanda Sykes - The physicist 
Rebel Wilson = The street smart one.

Now that might have been a good Ghostbusters reboot.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That looks absolutely awful



Did you post without reading the rest of the thread and realising that you aren't allowed to say that?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 3, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Did you post without reading the rest of the thread and realising that you aren't allowed to say that?


I don't really care about the inevitable gender arguments. It just looks awful.


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Sigourney Weaver, Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd were great in it.
> Its the only film that Rick Moranis is bearable in which must prove some sort of genius.



I have absolutely no doubt that this is what genius would look like to you.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

Reno said:


> I have absolutely no doubt that this is what genius would look like to you.


Come on. Rick Moranis is pretty fucking dreadful*. That he doesn't drag Ghostbusters into the dirt  simply by being in it is practically a miracle. 

* I suspect The Stone Cutters made him a star.


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Come on. Rick Moranis is pretty fucking dreadful*. That he doesn't drag Ghostbusters into the dirt  simply by being in it is practically a miracle.
> 
> * I suspect The Stone Cutters made him a star.


He gave exactly the same performance in every film, so not sure how you can pick one. I didn't mind him, he was the nerd du jour. I like Little Shop of Horrors, far prefer it to Ghostbusters and he was fine in that.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 3, 2016)

Reno said:


> He gave exactly the same performance in every film, so not sure how you can pick one. I didn't mind him, he was the nerd du jour. I like *Little Shop of Horrors*, far prefer it to Ghostbusters and he was fine in that.



His winiest performance of all. I'd rather be shoot in the head than watch it.


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

Gromit said:


> His winiest performance of all. I'd rather be shoot in the head than watch it.


I'd be happy to oblige.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 3, 2016)

camouflage said:


> I have a problem with this, the mug should be labelled Misogynist Fuckwit Tears. It's not like you get a complementary bag of gynophobia with yer cock an balls or something.



Do you mean, perchance "not all men..." ?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 3, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Come on. Rick Moranis is pretty fucking dreadful*. That he doesn't drag Ghostbusters into the dirt  simply by being in it is practically a miracle.
> 
> * I suspect The Stone Cutters made him a star.



Moranis is amazing in Ghostbusters - that one take apartment shot where he adlibs all the insults is great. And sniffing along Harold Ramis arm when he's Vinz Clortho...hahahahaha.

The possibility that Louis Tully would have been played by John Candy is raised in the directors commentary and always makes think how bad that could have gone, apparently he wanted him to be German.

Plus him and Annie Potts in the second one, 

"Alright, who brought the dog?"


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

Maybe as I'm not that huge a fan of the first film, I never understood why Ghostbusters II is so hated. It feels a little darker, but otherwise it's not bad as sequels go.


----------



## The Boy (Mar 3, 2016)

I have quite a soft spot for the second one.  Can see why folks aren't so fond of it though.

Remake looks like it *could* be good.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 3, 2016)

Leslie Jones' character looks like it was written in 1985, the "black seal of cool". A minor or at least supporting black person\s whos primary role in the film is to provide some streetwise muscle and endorse the zany antics of the white middle class persons faux rebelliousness with a thumbs up of "black cool". The band supporting Marty McFly in Back to the Future, the nameless young men in the Afro Americans fraternity "Lamda" in Revenge of the Nerds, the role of Winston in the original Ghost Busters. Fill your boots thinking of others. 

Murph and Brand in Interstellar, Furiosa in Road Fury, Stone in Gravity are all great examples of really intelligent and courageous people who are driven with a sense of their own agency. With the exception of Brand as a love interest you could have cast them as men and only needed minor dialogue changes. Their "womanhood" is a texture on their character like a regional identity it is not the primary reason for the existence of the character. This trailer on the other hand seems to be labouring the idea of a female "quantum physicist" here used as lazy shorthand for "brainy". 


Its selling "diversity" not embracing it.  It is flogging an idea of being about "feminism" as a marketing tool while being tone deaf to the classist and possibly mildly racist stereotyping of the poor, non white woman in an out of date role. 

And with the exception of Dread and maybe Batman, reboots are shite.


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

Lots of Internet "think pieces" have pointed out that the female characters in Mad Max and Interstellar were commendable and that's great, but that doesn't mean the female leads in a slapstic fantasy have to be "really intelligent and courageous people who are driven with a sense of their own agency". They should be just as daft as the blokes were in the original.

These days trailers get picked to pieces and analysed frame by frame and after two minutes people have already made up their mind that the film is shit and then they go and see it anyway. Apart from the lack of Bill Murray, the best thing about the original, this doesn't look that much worse. It's really not something I can get all purist about.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 3, 2016)

Reno said:


> Lots of Internet "think pieces" have pointed out that the female characters in Mad Max and Interstellar were commendable and that's great, but that doesn't mean the female leads in a slapstic fantasy have to be "really intelligent and courageous people who are driven with a sense of their own agency". They should be just as daft as the blokes were in the original.
> 
> These days trailers get picked to pieces and analysed frame by frame and after two minutes people have already made up their mind that the film is shit and then they go and see it anyway. Apart from the lack of Bill Murray, the best thing about the original, this doesn't look that much worse. It's really not something I can get all purist about.



It's about taking a wider view of cinema.  I made an edit up this thread about Hunger Games vs Winter's Bone.  Hunger Games was celebrated for its heroine, while few people know Winter's Bone (pretty much the reason J Law was cast in Hunger Games).  Hunger Games may seem like some sort of milestone feminist action film, but it's really just shallow rubbish compared to Winter's Bone.  Diversity without quality doesn't mean much in my book.  People aren't slagging off Ghostbusters (already!) due to its diversity, but rather because they can see through its game.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 3, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> And with the exception of Dread and maybe Batman, reboots are shite.


dredd. Interesting two choices there speer


----------



## belboid (Mar 3, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> It's about taking a wider view of cinema.  I made an edit up this thread about Hunger Games vs Winter's Bone.  Hunger Games was celebrated for its heroine, while few people know Winter's Bone (pretty much the reason J Law was cast in Hunger Games).  Hunger Games may seem like some sort of milestone feminist action film, but it's really just shallow rubbish compared to Winter's Bone.  Diversity without quality doesn't mean much in my book.  People aren't slagging off Ghostbusters (already!) due to its diversity, but rather because they can see through its game.


Summer blockbuster is better known than (Oscar nominated) indie movie, shock horror. What was your point?


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> It's about taking a wider view of cinema.  I made an edit up this thread about Hunger Games vs Winter's Bone.  Hunger Games was celebrated for its heroine, while few people know Winter's Bone (pretty much the reason J Law was cast in Hunger Games).  Hunger Games may seem like some sort of milestone feminist action film, but it's really just shallow rubbish compared to Winter's Bone.  Diversity without quality doesn't mean much in my book.  People aren't slagging off Ghostbusters (already!) due to its diversity, but rather because they can see through its game.



No diversity without quality ? I think you should get a T-Shirt printed of that.

You are trying to make some point based on "quality", which compares a small independent film aimed at art house audiences to a mega bucks franchise based on a series of YA books simply because they share the same lead and some superficial similarities. Winters Bone was good for what it is and so are some of the Hunger Games films, considering that they are aimed at a totally different and far wider audience (I've not seen the first two and liked the second one). You need to get more reference points outside of the J Law filmography though.


----------



## Reno (Mar 3, 2016)

Also these Hollywood films don't get sold on "diversity". That is again implying that simply casting women in lead roles is a PC gesture which is offensive. Studios are finally waking up to the fact that films which don't exclusively star white young men can be successful. You can put you finger on the obvious and complain about a general lack of quality in big budget Hollywood films as opposed to art house films, but that is not linked to issues of widening diversity in blockbusters.


----------



## camouflage (Mar 4, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Do you mean, perchance "not all men..." ?



I guess I do, even though it's a cliche. That's it right.... because"not all men" is a cliche?

Eta: feminist internet meme about attempts to deflect criticisms of patriarchy in relation to things like sexual assault;NotAllMen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All the same though, despite patriarchy I dont see why Ghostbusters reimagined as women should cause men to cry. I'm not bothered anyway.

Or to put a different way, say in this Ghostbusters movie the black character wasn't (somewhat predictably) the non scientist of the group... lets say she was the nuclear engineer instead... _thus a mug of white people tears? _

Now, if I know anything about white people (and I spoke to one once so i consider my knowledge extensive) I suspect a black nuclear engineer in a Ghostbusters remake wouldn't be the most effective way to make white people cry, even the particularly racist ones. Maybe the _crazy_ racist ones but that's going to be no more then... 12 percent of the general population of em I reckon. It's a kind of non sequitur I guess is what I'm saying, that's what I had a problem with, the logic is flawed.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 4, 2016)

The tears thing is a meme in its own right. There's precious little point bothering to dissect it. If you don't get the context of the meme, you're not going to understand. Such are memes.


----------



## The Boy (Mar 4, 2016)

"Actually, it's about quality in Hollywood cinema"


----------



## tommers (Mar 4, 2016)

I thought it looked alright.  Better than I expected.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 4, 2016)

And yes, you'd better believe there would be white people tears if Leslie Jones were given the role as the most brainy. Or if there was more than one black person.

See also: Finn in Star Wars.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 4, 2016)

its OK though cos there will be another one along soon with a male cast. So I read a few months ago.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

belboid said:


> Summer blockbuster is better known than (Oscar nominated) indie movie, shock horror. What was your point?



My point was Ghostbusters looks nothing to get excited about just because it has a female-weighted cast.  There are plenty of good films/tv shows with well-written female roles, despite what some would have you believe.  The extremely mediocre Hunger Games got the attention from audiences that Winter's Bone should have got.  "Hunger Games is a great film with Jennifer Lawrence as a tough female heroine."  "Surprised?  I think you'll find Winter's Bone already did that - and was a far better/more intelligent film."


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its OK though cos there will be another one along soon with a male cast. So I read a few months ago.



Great - a re-boot of a re-boot.


----------



## Cid (Mar 4, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> My point was Ghostbusters looks nothing to get excited about just because it has a female-weighted cast.  There are plenty of good films/tv shows with well-written female roles, despite what some would have you believe.  The extremely mediocre Hunger Games got the attention from audiences that Winter's Bone should have got.  "Hunger Games is a great film with Jennifer Lawrence as a tough female heroine."  "Surprised?  I think you'll find Winter's Bone already did that - and was a far better/more intelligent film."



More young adults watch action sci-fi type stuff than thought-provoking indie pieces. Shocking.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 4, 2016)

I saw the trailer and I didn't raise even a vague smile. Wanted to like it


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

Cid said:


> More young adults watch action sci-fi type stuff than thought-provoking indie pieces. Shocking.



So we should make judgements on the film industry on the (maybe) stupidest 25% of films?  As I said, look outside the most generic blockbusters and you'll find more well-written female (and male!) characters than it will suit some people to admit.  Also, nothing wrong with media/parents/etc trying to broaden young adults' tastes in cinema.  I was enjoying David Lynch films way before I would have been of legal age to buy them.


----------



## camouflage (Mar 4, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> My point was Ghostbusters looks nothing to get excited about just because it has a female-weighted cast.  There are plenty of good films/tv shows with well-written female roles, despite what some would have you believe.  The extremely mediocre Hunger Games got the attention from audiences that Winter's Bone should have got.  "Hunger Games is a great film with Jennifer Lawrence as a tough female heroine."  "Surprised?  I think you'll find Winter's Bone already did that - and was a far better/more intelligent film."



Different classes entirely,  Winters Bone is not the kind of film Hunger Games is, it's like comparing the General Forum on here to that forum where people talk about culture and theory and philosophy an politics an 'at.

I enjoyed both films very much for what they were. Plus Jennifer Lawrence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 4, 2016)

The music raised a cheer from me. Classic.


S☼I said:


> I saw the trailer and I didn't raise even a vague smile. Wanted to like it


I wasn't feeling the trailer till the music kicked in and then later slimer appeared. I'll give it a fair shake. Not at the picture house though.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> The music raised a cheer from me. Classic.
> 
> I wasn't feeling the trailer till the music kicked in and then later slimer appeared. I'll give it a fair shake. Not at the picture house though.


Nah, me neither, this will be a Now box job a year from now


----------



## Cid (Mar 4, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> So we should make judgements on the film industry on the (maybe) stupidest 25% of films?  As I said, look outside the most generic blockbusters and you'll find more well-written female (and male!) characters than it will suit some people to admit.  Also, nothing wrong with media/parents/etc trying to broaden young adults' tastes in cinema.  I was enjoying David Lynch films way before I would have been of legal age to buy them.



Films like the Hunger Games mark people's experience of growing up. We may think they're shit but they will get millions of young adults talking, their characters will be hero figures, they will have a definite impact on how the people who view them relate to the world around them. They are the films people watch... And it may well be that the Hunger Games generation 'rediscovers' Winter's Bone and makes it a 'cult classic'.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

camouflage said:


> Different classes entirely,  Winters Bone is not the kind of film Huner Games is, it's like comparing the General Forum on here to that forum where people talk about culture and theory and philosophy an politics an 'at.



Nah, it's a perfect example of Hollywood catching an excellent performance in an intelligent film and stealing that actor/actress for a lesser performance in a dumb film.  No intelligent person could deny the link between the two films.  The thing is, for an action film, the Hunger Games doesn't have much action.  It's stuck between some wannabe worthy message YA drama and action flick where the punches are pulled.  So it's closer to Winter's Bone than many might assume.


----------



## camouflage (Mar 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> And yes, you'd better believe there would be white people tears if Leslie Jones were given the role as the most brainy. Or if there was more than one black person.
> 
> See also: Finn in Star Wars.



Hissy fits and wild allegations about conspiracies and agendas and something called 'Cultural Marxism' that lurks in shadows and steals babies maybe... but tears are what happens when people are really really sad (or overcome with joy or laughter) rather than angry or indignant.

This reminds me of skiffy AI character Standard Question #3 really, "why do humans cry"? Because they're nobs seems to be the answer.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

Cid said:


> And it may well be that the Hunger Games generation 'rediscovers' Winter's Bone and makes it a 'cult classic'.



Would be good.    Already is, isn't it?   It's for sure the film where Jennifer Lawrence was spotted, her Mean Streets or whatever.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

Ugh.  Anger over 'add-on' black character in new Ghostbusters film


----------



## camouflage (Mar 4, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Ugh.  Anger over 'add-on' black character in new Ghostbusters film



People tired of the same old racial stereotype bollocks tears.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

camouflage said:


> People tired of the same old racial stereotype bollocks tears.



So how are we meant to take this film?  Celebrate it for its female cast or boo it for its seemingly backwards treatment of black people?    (Rhetorical question.)


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 4, 2016)

.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 4, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> So how are we meant to take this film?  Celebrate it for its female cast or boo it for its seemingly backwards treatment of black people?    (Rhetorical question.)


You can do both.rather like Chris Rock at the oscars.   Intelligent people don't look for absolutist opinions on Popcorn movies.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 4, 2016)

Please discuss all the male-led films that are shit and shouldn't be celebrated because there are better indie alternatives.

Oh wait...


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Please discuss all the male-led films that are shit and shouldn't be celebrated because there are better indie alternatives.
> 
> Oh wait...



I make no secret of the fact that i think most generic blockbuster films are shit and take up too much cultural space, in that you can avoid them but not the general chatter around them. Wasn't i moaning about superhero films on here the other day?


----------



## belboid (Mar 4, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> My point was Ghostbusters looks nothing to get excited about just because it has a female-weighted cast.  There are plenty of good films/tv shows with well-written female roles, despite what some would have you believe.  The extremely mediocre Hunger Games got the attention from audiences that Winter's Bone should have got.  "Hunger Games is a great film with Jennifer Lawrence as a tough female heroine."  "Surprised?  I think you'll find Winter's Bone already did that - and was a far better/more intelligent film."


So, no point then.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

belboid said:


> So, no point then.



That you can detect.  Carry on.


----------



## Cid (Mar 4, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> That you can detect.  Carry on.



What is your point then?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

Cid said:


> What is your point then?



I've already said.


----------



## Cid (Mar 4, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I've already said.



Was it the 'diversity without quality doesn't mean much' bit?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 4, 2016)

Cid said:


> Was it the 'diversity without quality doesn't mean much' bit?



#70


----------



## Cid (Mar 4, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> #70



Oh. You're going to stand by that are you? I'll leave you to it then.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 4, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> You can do both.rather like Chris Rock at the oscars.   Intelligent people don't look for absolutist opinions on Popcorn movies.


Says a white woman.


----------



## Cid (Mar 4, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Says a white woman.



Wow. Always deliver don't you G?


----------



## Yata (Mar 6, 2016)

just seen trailer looks really shit


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 7, 2016)

I like the look of it but I can't figure why there's a lot of hatred towards it. And much as I love Bill Murray; his character was a bit of a sex pest...


----------



## Bonfirelight (Mar 7, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I like the look of it but I can't figure why there's a lot of hatred towards it. And much as I love Bill Murray; his character was a bit of a sex pest...


Everyone took a bit of thorazine on dates in the 80s.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 7, 2016)

Bonfirelight said:


> Everyone took a bit of thorazine on dates in the 80s.



Really? Anyways, as some of you will already be aware; this is just another reboot. Remember this from the 70s?


----------



## scifisam (Mar 11, 2016)

Looks like a fun movie to watch with kids to me. I was just the right age for the originals and this looks just different enough to be worth watching too. 

The Hunger Games movies actually have really serious, intelligent elements and nobody who's actually seen them could claim they were just action movie blockbusters.


----------



## May Kasahara (Mar 11, 2016)

S☼I said:


> I saw the trailer and I didn't raise even a vague smile. Wanted to like it



Same here, apart from wanting to like it. Ghostbusters doesn't really require any kind of remake.

However, I certainly didn't want to dislike it...but it looks pretty pointless.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 11, 2016)

The trailer looks rubbish, but out of curiosity I watched the original trailer. Also wasn't good:


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 11, 2016)

Yeah, that trailer is fucking shit 

And at the end:

"Ghostbusters, starring everyone but the black guy."

Fucking hell.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 11, 2016)

It's made me realise I'm going to miss Janine though.


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 15, 2016)




----------



## toggle (Mar 15, 2016)

camouflage said:


> I have a problem with this, the mug should be labelled Misogynist Fuckwit Tears. It's not like you get a complementary bag of gynophobia with yer cock an balls or something.



oh, did we fail to spell out #notallmen?

do you still need that?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2016)

Gromit said:


> To clarify I don't give a shit that they've switched it to women. Its a really clever market ploy actually. Well done.
> The effects budget looks alright.
> They've copied many elements of the original with the street wise black person muscling in by bribing them with access to a car etc. We have the practical scientist, the more theoretical book smart one and the zany one. Yeah its all there.
> 
> ...


"Actresses"


----------



## toggle (Mar 15, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Leslie Jones' character looks like it was written in 1985, the "black seal of cool". A minor or at least supporting black person\s whos primary role in the film is to provide some streetwise muscle and endorse the zany antics of the white middle class persons faux rebelliousness with a thumbs up of "black cool". The band supporting Marty McFly in Back to the Future, the nameless young men in the Afro Americans fraternity "Lamda" in Revenge of the Nerds, the role of Winston in the original Ghost Busters. Fill your boots thinking of others.
> 
> Murph and Brand in Interstellar, Furiosa in Road Fury, Stone in Gravity are all great examples of really intelligent and courageous people who are driven with a sense of their own agency. With the exception of Brand as a love interest you could have cast them as men and only needed minor dialogue changes. Their "womanhood" is a texture on their character like a regional identity it is not the primary reason for the existence of the character. This trailer on the other hand seems to be labouring the idea of a female "quantum physicist" here used as lazy shorthand for "brainy".
> 
> ...


the bbf?

Why the black best friend has had its day | Maurice Mcleod


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 15, 2016)

Marshmallow Men's Activist


----------



## toggle (Mar 15, 2016)

Reno said:


> Also these Hollywood films don't get sold on "diversity". That is again implying that simply casting women in lead roles is a PC gesture which is offensive. Studios are finally waking up to the fact that films which don't exclusively star white young men can be successful. You can put you finger on the obvious and complain about a general lack of quality in big budget Hollywood films as opposed to art house films, but that is not linked to issues of widening diversity in blockbusters.




this all feels a little bit too much like doing tokenistic shit as an excuse to not do it again.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Nah, it's a perfect example of Hollywood catching an excellent performance in an intelligent film and stealing that actor/actress for a lesser performance in a dumb film.  No intelligent person could deny the link between the two films.  The thing is, for an action film, the Hunger Games doesn't have much action.  It's stuck between some wannabe worthy message YA drama and action flick where the punches are pulled.  So it's closer to Winter's Bone than many might assume.


"Actress"


----------



## Santino (Mar 15, 2016)

What's wrong with 'lady actor'?


----------



## Reno (Mar 15, 2016)

toggle said:


> this all feels a little bit too much like doing tokenistic shit as an excuse to not do it again.



Default Internet cynicism or not, in the end Hollywood only does things if they make money. I think rather than making token films starring femal comedians to satisfy some quota for a brief time, this is Ghostbuters reboot is down to the financial success of Bridesmaids and the other female lead comedies in its wake.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 15, 2016)

kabbes said:


> "Actress"


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


>



As with many other job titles, it has become convention in some places (not so much in America, it seems, but certainly over here) to no longer differentiate between genders. The role is of actor. Just as there are police officers, fire fighters, comedian/comic and so on.

Indeed, I believe even some (if not all) of our award shows now will have awards for "best male actor" and "best female actor" rather than actor and actress.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

The reason being, since I'm sure you'll ask, is that gendered role titles are often hierarchical in nature. Think of the way WPC might be spoken of as opposed to policeman. (Well, equally with contempt on here, but you get my point.)

And to preempt your protestations, I'm sure _you_ would never think of those roles as being hierarchical just because of their names. Sadly that is a thing that happens, though.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2016)

What about the word "actor" makes it inherently male?

Only you and Gromit have used the word "actress" on this thread, by the way.

And your confusion about the objection in 2016 speaks volumes about you.  More than the use of the word itself.


----------



## toggle (Mar 16, 2016)

kabbes said:


> What about the word "actor" makes it inherently male?
> 
> Only you and Gromit have used the word "actress" on this thread, by the way.
> 
> And your confusion about the objection in 2016 speaks volumes about you.  More than the use of the word itself.



So descriptors that have historically been used to describe men aren't gendered, but those historically used to describe women are? It's almost like it's an example of how a patriarchy views male as default and female as other.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

kabbes said:


> What about the word "actor" makes it inherently male?
> 
> Only you and Gromit have used the word "actress" on this thread, by the way.
> 
> And your confusion about the objection in 2016 speaks volumes about you.  More than the use of the word itself.



Is that addressed at me?  Do you really think the average person has stopped using the word actress or would agree there's anything inherently wrong with it?

What's the difference between 'best male/female actor' and actor/actress?  Both ways communicate the same information.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2016)

Yes, it's addressed at you.  Keep digging away there, maybe your misogynist promised land is more than 6 foot down.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

kabbes said:


> Yes, it's addressed at you.  Keep digging away there, maybe your misogynist promised land is more than 6 foot down.



Do get a grip.  I ask you, how many people do you know in real life that use the word actor over actress?  How is using the term 'actress' misogynistic?  I see both equal - just one describes a male and the other describes a female.  You know, if I suddenly find a rash of people are offended by the term actress (and I remember), I'll start using actor instead.  But, as I suspect is the case with most people, actress is lodged in the brain... and frankly I have far greater things to worry about.


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 16, 2016)

kabbes said:


> "Actress"


this should be in that other thread - things that make you feel old. anyone who uses this word deserves to feel old!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Is that addressed at me?  Do you really think the average person has stopped using the word actress or would agree there's anything inherently wrong with it?
> 
> What's the difference between 'best male/female actor' and actor/actress?  Both ways communicate the same information.



If you think there's no difference between actor/actress and male actor/female actor, then why would you care if people who do think there's a difference ask you to use one over the other?

Unless you have a different agenda, of course.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> this should be in that other thread - things that make you feel old. anyone who uses this word deserves to feel old!



If it's any consolation, I feel somewhat old.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Do get a grip.  I ask you, how many people do you know in real life that use the word actor over actress?  How is using the term 'actress' misogynistic?  I see both equal - just one describes a male and the other describes a female.  You know, if I suddenly find a rash of people are offended by the term actress (and I remember), I'll start using actor instead.  But, as I suspect is the case with most people, actress is lodged in the brain... and frankly I have far greater things to worry about.



I hear lots of older people still say "darkie" ... I guess that's okay though because there are far greater things to worry about.


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I hear lots of older people still say "darkie" ... I guess that's okay though because there are far greater things to worry about.


i can think of a word beginning with 't' that most people seem to think its OK to use too.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> If you think there's no difference between actor/actress and male actor/female actor, then why would you care if people who do think there's a difference ask you to use one over the other?
> 
> Unless you have a different agenda, of course.



Why should I bend my language to suit other people's whims?  Actress, as far as I know, is still a perfectly acceptable and understandable term for most people.  As I said, actress just comes naturally to me when talking about female actors.  Hence, for the time being, I shall continue to use it.  (It's also less words, innit?)


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I hear lots of older people still say "darkie" ... I guess that's okay though because there are far greater things to worry about.



Oh, please!  Hardly comparable.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

You're misunderstanding how language works, JV.

It evolves at different rates. Sometimes quite quickly, sometimes quite slowly. 

The thing with actor - many made a conscious decision to use that, but of course there was no national memo sent out to 60million people. It becomes normalised over time, as people hear it being said on television, read it in newspapers, etc. If it still hasn't filtered through to some people yet, that's quite usual. 

However, once you _have _been made aware of the change, there is no good reason not to take that on board. Apart from if there is an agenda. A spitefulness perhaps? An inner misogyny? A battle for power?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> However, once you _have _been made aware of the change, there is no good reason not to take that on board. Apart from if there is an agenda. A spitefulness perhaps? An inner misogyny? A battle for power?



If I thought there was any less value in an actress than an actor, you'd have a point; but I don't.  So it's unusual for a job title to specify a person's gender, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.  'Actress' doesn't really have the history of abuse 'darkie' has, does it?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

There's only so long you can continue to mask the reasons for the things you do and say, JV.

You try so hard to dance around these issues, claiming you're coming from one position or another, to avoid any and all association that might paint you as misogynist.

And yet, it's always about these exact issues. You turn up like a bad penny on every thread that has anything to do with women, sexism, feminism. You always try and argue against feminist positions, but without admitting an anti-feminist agenda. And yet, here you are, again and again, drawn like a fly to shit. 

If you weren't a misogynist, if you weren't sexist, if you weren't anti-feminist... you simply wouldn't be here taking part in these threads.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> If I thought there was any less value in an actress than an actor, you'd have a point; but I don't.  So it's unusual for a job title to specify a person's gender, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.  'Actress' doesn't really have the history of abuse 'darkie' has, does it?



It's all about you again, isn't it.

You can be told something is offensive by a woman or multiple women (whatever it might be, not necessarily actress - you've got form here) and you simply don't care because you, the great all rational man, don't see a problem with it so the women must be wrong and you must be right.

When we look to solve oppression, we ask those who are oppressed _how_ they are oppressed. They're the ones who experience it every day. Why on earth would the people who don't experience it be the ones best placed to decide what that oppression actually was?

(Again, I reiterate this isn't just about actress - I'm speaking more widely about your general outlook re: being a massive sexist cunt.)


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

So anyone who uses the term 'actress' is a misogynist?  You're right about there being a power struggle of sorts - what I definitely don't agree with is being expected to change my language on the whim of maybe 1% of people when any suggestion of offence isn't backed up with good reason.  Imagine I told you to replace word x with word y, just because I should.  You'd rightly tell me to fuck off.  People don't appreciate that sort of policing.

Anyway, no offence, but I can't really be arsed arguing this point any longer.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

Not everyone. You're a misogynist, yes.

I'm hardly surprised you won't engage with anything else I've written. I suspect it's because you don't have a leg to stand on.

Fuckity bye.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Do get a grip.  I ask you, how many people do you know in real life that use the word actor over actress?  How is using the term 'actress' misogynistic?  I see both equal - just one describes a male and the other describes a female.  You know, if I suddenly find a rash of people are offended by the term actress (and I remember), I'll start using actor instead.  But, as I suspect is the case with most people, actress is lodged in the brain... and frankly I have far greater things to worry about.



Most people I know use the term "actress". That's not to say it's not outdated and incorrect but if I try and correct them they usually look at me as if I'm mad.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> You're a misogynist, yes.



Nope.  A misogynist hates women.  I do not.  Not agreeing with every feminist idea you have doesn't make me a misogynist.  

If you want to talk about language, a first step might be not to overuse the term 'misogynist' - because that actually is offensive.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Most people I know use the term "actress". That's not to say it's not outdated and incorrect but if I try and correct them they usually look at me as if I'm mad.



Who decides it's outdated and incorrect?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Nope.  A misogynist hates women.  I do not.  Not agreeing with every feminist idea you have doesn't make me a misogynist.
> 
> If you want to talk about language, a first step might be not to overuse the term 'misogynist' - because that actually is offensive.



HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Misogynist fuckwit. Everyone knows it. Fool yourself all you like. Maybe you think you're playing a clever game. You're not. You're transparent. There's a reason everyone comments on your arrival in feminism/women-based threads. We all know to expect it. You're right and women are wrong. All the careful and considered explanations about why X is offensive and why Y needs to be challenged falls on deaf ears because you don't care one jot what women have to say about anything - you care about being able to assert your own power and vision of life over women. You fool not a single person.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Who decides it's outdated and incorrect?



Language being in a constant state of flux, the times we live in - people. Of course; not everyone adapts to the ongoing changes. I know plenty of people who use terminology like "coloured" & "half caste", "tranny" and so on. And most of them would be genuinely horrified if you told them they are offensive.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 16, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Language being in a constant state of flux, the times we live in - people. Of course; not everyone adapts to the ongoing changes. I know plenty of people who use terminology like "coloured" & "half caste", "tranny" and so on. And most of them would be genuinely horrified if you told them they are offensive.



It's a complex matter. Most people are genuinely sensitive to the offence they might cause when told about it. Unless they're geared up for hate - which I believe is a minority of people.

My dear departed nana, she used to whisper "darkie" - she knew it wasn't quite the right word to say, but she hadn't really worked out what else to say, and she'd grown up saying that.

She had a cat, called Blackie.

A black family moved in next door.

She instantly changed the cat's name to Suzie. She was mortified at the thought of standing on the back door step shouting "Blackie!" to get the cat in 

Now, that's a cute, funny story. But it shows how language is complex. She knew "darkie" wasn't quite right, just as she knew saying "Blackie" would cause offence. She changed one immediately, but never quite managed to change the other. The difference was that she wouldn't say "darkie" to other people, outside, in public, etc. She knew it was wrong, but it still held a place in her language, and it never quite shifted. But she could also never bring herself to knowingly cause offence to people. 

That's what I find so hateful about JV's stance. He simply doesn't care if anything causes offence to people because he'll be the one to decide what he does and says thank you very much, and fuck anyone else.

It's nothing but hate and spite.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Do get a grip.  I ask you, how many people do you know in real life that use the word actor over actress?  How is using the term 'actress' misogynistic?  I see both equal - just one describes a male and the other describes a female.  You know, if I suddenly find a rash of people are offended by the term actress (and I remember), I'll start using actor instead.  But, as I suspect is the case with most people, actress is lodged in the brain... and frankly I have far greater things to worry about.


Using the term isn't inherently misogynistic.  It's _you_ that is misogynistic.  And so you are drawn to terms that create segregation and reinforce power structures and you cling to them.  It's what misogynists do.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's a complex matter. Most people are genuinely sensitive to the offence they might cause when told about it. Unless they're geared up for hate - which I believe is a minority of people.
> 
> My dear departed nana, she used to whisper "darkie" - she knew it wasn't quite the right word to say, but she hadn't really worked out what else to say, and she'd grown up saying that.
> 
> ...




I don't know JV, so I can't say if it's mischief, trollery or just plain spite. I do know, as I said, people who say things that are, at the very least, archaic. But they don't mean any harm by it. Even though it's annoying to hear certain terms and phrases trotted out again and again. I also know people who when you politely point out they are being offensive, will continue to do so and invoke the "pc brigade" mantra. Or "it's a free country, I can say what I like" etc.

I do try to change their minds but there's those that won't be swayed. What can you do, though? As the tagline went; who ya gonna call?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2016)

What can you do?  Well for a start, you don't fucking _ignore_ it.  Or excuse it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2016)

kabbes said:


> What can you do?  Well for a start, you don't fucking _ignore_ it.  Or excuse it.



Indeed. If it's said to/at me, or someone in my circle says something offensive, I point it out to them. I wouldn't excuse it but if you have someone using archaic terms all their life - they're hardly going to kick the habit at this stage. That's not to say there's no hope - my Mom has certainly mellowed with her terminology and outlook over the years. She still has a bit of a distance to go, mind.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Language being in a constant state of flux, the times we live in - people. Of course; not everyone adapts to the ongoing changes. I know plenty of people who use terminology like "coloured" & "half caste", "tranny" and so on. And most of them would be genuinely horrified if you told them they are offensive.



Really, do you think actress is in the same league as these terms?  When was 'actress' ever a term of abuse?  When someone tells you not to do or say something, do you automatically oblige?  Or do you consider their argument and make a personal call on whether you will change?  Actress really isn't archaic - I'd almost bet more use actress for a female actor than actor, without any sexist intent or imagining it as a term that belittles women.  Sorry, I'm not going to be bullied out of using what is still a perfectly mainstream and, to the vast majority, inoffensive term.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Is that addressed at me?  Do you really think the average person has stopped using the word actress or would agree there's anything inherently wrong with it?
> 
> What's the difference between 'best male/female actor' and actor/actress?  Both ways communicate the same information.


Aw why did you bite?

Couldn't you see how much they were itching to have this argument with you?

You weren't replying but they still kept posting and posting towards your imagined response. Desperate to don their social justice warrior plumage. 
So desperate it was whimsical 

Now you've made their day giving them what they wanted.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Really, do you think actress is in the same league as these terms?  When was 'actress' ever a term of abuse?  When someone tells you not to do or say something, do you automatically oblige?



Hi Johnny, I'm krtek and people tell me not to do or say stuff all the time 

I wouldn't say it's a term of abuse - especially when compared to the other terms - but it is, let's say, ignorant, belittling, maybe when you consider that it's entering the realms of archaic. If we can have male and female nurses, doctors etc - why not actors?



Johnny Vodka said:


> Sorry, I'm not going to be bullied out of using what is still a perfectly mainstream and, to the vast majority, inoffensive term.



It is and it isn't. It just doesn't fit, anymore. 

And if you ever meet an actor who happens to be female & refers to herself as an actor; I assume you'd do the same, no?


----------



## Gromit (Mar 16, 2016)

In my opinion the only thing wrong with having actor and actress was that there was never acter to refer to both. 

It's not like the word was actoress. 

To be honest the only reason I didn't use actor in my post was because we were talking about s female only lead cast and you cunts would have implied I was saying swap women for men purely because I used the word actor instead of actress. I know what you cunts are like.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Aw why did you bite?
> 
> Couldn't you see how much *they* were itching to have this argument with you?
> 
> ...



You forgot


----------



## Poi E (Mar 16, 2016)

Liked the original for its lovely treatment of widescreen by the late Kovacs. Gave it a class that outweighed its Sat Nite Live jokiness. The obsessive/neurotic characters played by Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis seemed to presage the characters of the Seinfeld sort. The new film, with its natural reliance on loads of CGI, suffers as with al of its ilk from the cinematographer not being able to determine proper scope when so much is shot second/third/fx unit. Guess this film was the start of it but much was superimposition rather than manipulation. Worth a download.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 16, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> If we can have male and female nurses, doctors etc - why not actor.



We will... eventually. 
It will take a bit longer because actress was very much in common usage and doctress and nursor weren't.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Hi Johnny, I'm krtek and people tell me not to do or say stuff all the time
> 
> I wouldn't say it's a term of abuse - especially when compared to the other terms - but it is, let's say, ignorant, belittling, maybe when you consider that it's entering the realms of archaic. If we can have male and female nurses, doctors etc - why not actors?
> 
> ...



Well, yeah, most other professions don't separate on gender, but that doesn't mean actress is inherently wrong.  The English language has quirks.  Quirks are okay if a jury would be unlikely to find them offensive.

I suppose if I met someone who considered themselves to be an actor rather than an actress, I'd make a special attempt out of respect for that person... just as I'm John, not Johnny, in real life.    However, I haven't seen any landslide of opinion or reason that appeals to stop the use of the term generally.  I do think people should resist changing their behaviour unless there's very good reason to.  Too many people trying to tell others what to do!


----------



## Gromit (Mar 16, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You forgot


VP and Kabbes are a them?


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Who decides it's outdated and incorrect?


Is it men?


----------



## Gromit (Mar 16, 2016)

Someone throw seamstress and tailor into the mix of this argument please


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Someone throw seamstress and tailor into the mix of this argument please


Seamstress and actress both famously euphemisms for prostitute, of course.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

Santino said:


> Is it men?



Nope.  I discuss films and tv shows enough with men and women to know that actress is a term still in use, very much more so than actor as a substitute.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Well, yeah, most other professions don't separate on gender, but that doesn't mean actress is inherently wrong.  The English language has quirks.
> 
> I suppose if I met someone who considered themselves to be an actor rather than an actress, I'd make a special attempt out of respect for that person... just as I'm John, not Johnny, in real life.    However, I haven't seen any landslide of opinion or reason that appeals to stop the use of the term generally.  I do think people should resist changing their behaviour unless there's very good reason to.  Too many people trying to tell others what to do!



Well, yes. And no. It's down to context, environment and acceptance of what people are and aren't comfortable with. Which can go both ways, in the case of this thread ...

As for too many people dictating what can and cannot be said - I guess that all boils down to context & who's saying it to who. For instance; I've had plenty of hetero folks (and some gay folks) over the years tell me; as a bisexual, what I can or can't do & how bisexuals behave, interact and the nature of their sex lives. Like we're all a big homgenous blob... some of it, when said to my face I can dismiss or put them right immediately. But when it's anonymous neanderthals online; there's a limit to how much you can change their mind. I find I usually cannot when it comes to that particular subject.

But that's straying away from things by miles. Don't cross the streams etc! I'm sure the success or failure of the film in question will not be down to gender or nomenclature but rather the quality of script...


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Nope.  I discuss films and tv shows enough with men and women to know that actress is a term still in use, very much more so than actor as a substitute.


So, yes. You have decided.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Mar 16, 2016)

Santino said:


> So, yes. You have decided.



I've decided for me, yes,  It's a word I've used around other people IRL and - surprise - no-one's ever mentioned it as being offensive.  I'm not going to tell you what term you should use.


----------



## Reno (Mar 16, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Liked the original for its lovely treatment of widescreen by the late Kovacs. Gave it a class that outweighed its Sat Nite Live jokiness. The obsessive/neurotic characters played by Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis seemed to presage the characters of the Seinfeld sort. The new film, with its natural reliance on loads of CGI, suffers as with al of its ilk from the cinematographer not being able to determine proper scope when so much is shot second/third/fx unit. Guess this film was the start of it but much was superimposition rather than manipulation. Worth a download.



No more was shot second or third unit then than is now. They didn't shoot the effects for the original in camera, they combined everything in an optical printer and the fact that fx are composited digitally now makes no difference to the composition.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I've decided for me, yes,  It's a word I've used around other people IRL and - surprise - no-one's ever mentioned it as being offensive.  I'm not going to tell you what term you should use.


It's you that is offensive.  You.  Not the word actress.  You.


----------



## toggle (Mar 17, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Nope.  A misogynist hates women.  I do not.  Not agreeing with every feminist idea you have doesn't make me a misogynist.
> 
> If you want to talk about language, a first step might be not to overuse the term 'misogynist' - because that actually is offensive.



not half as fucking offensive as your insistence that you understand women's experiences better than they do.


tbh jv, i'm perfectly happy with the use of the term misogynist for someone who thinks that their deliberately blinkered viewpoint on women's experiences has a right to trump the actual lived experiences of actual women. because that level of sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen is fairly indicative of a massive fuckiing problem with women. as in actual women, not these imaginary stepford creatures you seem to want us to be.


----------



## toggle (Mar 17, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Aw why did you bite?
> 
> Couldn't you see how much they were itching to have this argument with you?
> 
> ...



for a self proclaimed non MRA, you don't half quack like one.


----------



## toggle (Mar 17, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Someone throw seamstress and tailor into the mix of this argument please



if i thought you actually wanted to talk about gendered language, i'd explain. 

but i think this is another example of you waving shit about, because you think this is funny. 

it's not btw. 

at least, it's not for anyone who isn't proud of their ignorance.


----------



## toggle (Mar 17, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> i can think of a word beginning with 't' that most people seem to think its OK to use too.



i do know what you mean.

but i can't resist the urge to sat that the word i'[m thinking of the most that begins with a t is twat. cause the ignorant twat brigade is out to play again.


----------



## Poi E (Mar 18, 2016)

Reno said:


> No more was shot second or third unit then than is now. They didn't shoot the effects for the original in camera, they combined everything in an optical printer and the fact that fx are composited digitally now makes no difference to the composition.



Yup, knew it was optical effects but stand corrected. Guess Kovas just made it look NYC gritty and lush at the same time, but he probably didn't spend too much time with a green screen and actors wearing dots.


----------



## Reno (Mar 18, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Yup, knew it was optical effects but stand corrected. Guess Kovas just made it look NYC gritty and lush at the same time, but he probably didn't spend too much time with a green screen and actors wearing dots.






He spent quite some time with a blue screen, which is what they used back then and they used it a lot in Ghostbusters. Actors in green dots are used for motion capture, which I doubt they'll use in the new Ghostbusters. They are still shooting the actual locations and then they add the effects, just like they did then.

It was hugely technical back then too and it was something the DOP had to take into consideration. The lack of digital effects doesn't make anything "more authentic" with a special effects film like Ghostbusters. If the cinematography for this new one will be not as good, then it has nothing to do with the effects. If anything, the effects are integrated in a way that far more seamless now and what you don't get are these effects shots which are more grainy than the rest of the film, which is what happens when a film runs several times though an optical printer and goes down several generations.


----------



## Reno (Mar 18, 2016)

Just checked and the cinematography is by Robert Yeoman who is a great cinematographer who has shot most of Wes Anderson's films, so there is reason why this shouldn't look good.


----------



## krtek a houby (May 19, 2016)

It looks fun but I think the hate and misogyny is getting way over the top  where is it all coming from?


----------



## Idris2002 (May 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> where is it all coming from?



Capitalism.


----------



## krtek a houby (May 19, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Capitalism.



???


----------



## Idris2002 (May 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> ???


The operation of the capitalist system produces social problems that are manifested in cultural displays of, e.g., misogyny and hate.


----------



## Reno (May 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It looks fun but I think the hate and misogyny is getting way over the top  where is it all coming from?



The Internet, which is dominated by geek boys, many of whom are idiots.

The "critic" for Cinemassacre", refuses to review the film and has been called "heroic" for it. Somehow he didn't mind reviewing all the male lead reboots, remakes and somesuch: Twitter Shits Itself After Whiny Man-Baby Refuses To Review 'Ghostbusters'


----------



## krtek a houby (May 19, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> The operation of the capitalist system produces social problems that are manifested in cultural displays of, e.g., misogyny and hate.



And this misogyny and hate is manifested solely within the capitalist system?


----------



## Reno (May 19, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> The operation of the capitalist system produces social problems that are manifested in cultural displays of, e.g., misogyny and hate.



Stop the press, global billion $$$ industry called out for capitalism !


----------



## Reno (May 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And this misogyny and hate is manifested solely within the capitalist system?


Of course not.


----------



## krtek a houby (May 19, 2016)

Reno said:


> Stop the press, global billion $$$ industry called out for capitalism !



I ain't 'fraid of no groats!


----------



## Idris2002 (May 19, 2016)

Reno said:


> Stop the press, global billion $$$ industry called out for capitalism !


BOO- YAH!


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 19, 2016)

Reno said:


> The Internet, which is dominated by geek boys, many of whom are idiots.
> 
> The "critic" for Cinemassacre", refuses to review the film and has been called "heroic" for it. Somehow he didn't mind reviewing all the male lead reboots, remakes and somesuch: Twitter Shits Itself After Whiny Man-Baby Refuses To Review 'Ghostbusters'




To be fair to James Rolfe (aka the angry video game nerd)  he mainly  reviews bad video games.  He has a fan base who being  part of this  not so great  audience  really want him to  to one  of his  angry rip it to shreds  reviews  like  he does  for atrocious video games.  He just made a video  explaining why  he  wasn't looking forward to the movie  and wasn't going to review it.

also  he  has  never reviewed  a ghost busters movie. Just the games.

He is a big ghost busters fan and  has  done  related  videos  but  only really  parody videos and the like


hi new video really  does  feel like a follow up to this video  he made in 2007  talking about  the possibilities of there being a GB III   

Ghostbusters 3 – My Honest Thoughts


----------



## Poot (Jul 16, 2016)

We saw this today and all agreed that it was rather fun. 

The kids found it just terrifying enough and enjoyed the big guns etc and we liked the jokes that went over their heads and looking out for members of the original cast. Worth the ticket price, I'd say. Not a bad effort.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 17, 2016)

trailer looks well shit, it aint ghostbusters.


----------



## Kesher (Jul 17, 2016)

Poot said:


> We saw this today and all agreed that it was rather fun.
> 
> The kids found it just terrifying enough and enjoyed the big guns etc and we liked the jokes that went over their heads and looking out for members of the original cast. Worth the ticket price, I'd say. Not a bad effort.



Did you see it in 2D or 3D? Apparently it's well worth seeing in 3D


----------



## Poot (Jul 17, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> trailer looks well shit, it aint ghostbusters.


It was an odd way to market it, choosing all of the parts of the film that weren't funny or scary to put in the trailer, but somehow that seems to be what happened.


----------



## Poot (Jul 17, 2016)

Kesher said:


> Did you see it in 2D or 3D? Apparently it's well worth seeing in 3D


3D is lost on me since I can only see through one eye at a time. But there were lots of big "surprise" ghosts so it probably would lend itself to it very well. I'm afraid I have no idea how 3D works for others though - if you've never had any depth perception it's hard to imagine!


----------



## Favelado (Jul 17, 2016)

Poot said:


> It was an odd way to market it, choosing all of the parts of the film that weren't funny or scary to put in the trailer, but somehow that seems to be what happened.



Better because the trailer normally makes the film redundant.


----------



## treefrog (Jul 19, 2016)

I fucking LOVED it. 

I cried at the end, not gonna lie. I was obsessed with Ghostbusters as a kid and this film was like every pretend-game and Ghostbusters story I ever made up about it. Seeing a film with women in the leads where none of them are raped, or assaulted, or mocked, or demeaned in any way, was so refreshing I didn't realise how much I needed to see it until it was up there on screen. It gives subtle, funny nods to the originals without making it clear HEY THIS WAS IN THE ORIGINAL FILM which meant if you'd never seen the 1984 film you're not going to miss anything. The script is hilarious, the cast are awesome, and there are some genuinely creepy moments. 

I hope it's a massive, incredible success and the shitbag racists and haters now hounding the cast suffer seeing women being excellent in all films from now on, because that's the least they deserve.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2016)

I saw this at the weekend, quite funny in places - good dialogue and I particularly liked the idea of a dumb male secretary.


----------



## Reno (Jul 19, 2016)

I've never been a huge fan of the original Ghostbusters, I've got a feeling that I'll probably prefer this version.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 19, 2016)

Had zero interest in the Total Recall reboot, the Clash of the Titans, Man of Steel, Spiderman, Strawdogs, The Day the Earth Stood Still or dozens of other "reboots". 

But now its a judgement on you not to like a reboot. 




Did like the Christopher Nolan Batmans. The inference here is clear.


----------



## Reno (Jul 20, 2016)

Haven't we known this for well over a decade or two by now ?

Her theory about Ghostbusters and how the studio turned around the backlash sounds plausible but I'm not going to agree or disagree  till I see it myself (which will be a while, it's not a priority and I'm not going to go to a cinema for this)

Most reboots have been crap, but some I liked. I think the new Planet of the Apes films are the best Hollywood blockbusters currently going. The Star Trek reboot films have also been well received (two out of three anyway) and I too liked Nolan's Batman films.

If audiences keep flocking to films which are part of known franchises and if they don't support original films then that's what we will be getting for some time to come.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 20, 2016)

I think we should start calling them remakes again, rather than reboots. Lazy studio values shouldn't be rewarded with sexy new language.

I think Ghostbusters is perfect for an all female team. Whether it's any good or not, I don't know yet, but I fancy checking it out.


----------



## Reno (Jul 20, 2016)

I agree, I loathe the term reboot.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 20, 2016)

I have emailed Kermode to promote my cause.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 20, 2016)

Leslie Jones has received an absolutely disgusting onslaught of racist abuse on twitter, causing her to leave. 

Silver lining, it finally got them to permaban that cunt milo.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 20, 2016)

Syrian orphan sorry to hear North American childhoods ruined by enjoyable film about ghosts


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 21, 2016)

Just seen it. I kinda liked it.

It's mostly well put together but I felt the climax was weak.

The main problem was the humour. I found myself wincing almost as much as I smiled.

The dumb comedy kept booting me out of the movie.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 22, 2016)

Chris Hemsworth's Kevin was pretty analogous to Louis Tully, except without 'normal' guys around him (like Venkman and Stanz) people notice it more


----------



## ska invita (Jul 22, 2016)

Favelado said:


> I think we should start calling them remakes again, rather than reboots. Lazy studio values shouldn't be rewarded with sexy new language.
> 
> I think Ghostbusters is perfect for an all female team. Whether it's any good or not, I don't know yet, but I fancy checking it out.


I think rehash is best.
To boot is to load a program, and I think reboot means restarting a series of films specifically, rather than a one-off remake.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Jul 22, 2016)

Reboot makes sense with something like Batman where they change the whole universe and mythology. Not so much with Ghostbusters where they just revive an old Franchise


----------



## Reno (Jul 22, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I think rehash is best.
> To boot is to load a program, and I think reboot means restarting a series of films specifically, rather than a one-off remake.


If Ghostbusters is successful, the purpose is to get a whole series of films going.  Hollywood likes to make as a much money from as few ideas as possible and unless a film flops the idea always is to get a new franchise going.

They always tried to make more of a series of the previous Ghostbusters. The reason they never went beyond one sequel was because they didn't contract Bill Murray for more than one film and after the second film didn't turn out that well, he kept rejecting the screenplays for other sequels.Then a couple of years ago just as it looked they could get Murray to commit after all, Harold Ramis died.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 22, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I think rehash is best.
> To boot is to load a program, and I think reboot means restarting a series of films specifically, rather than a one-off remake.



That's right. In my more extensive missive to Kermode, I have made the same distinction and suggested "remake" for individual films with the same story, and "rehash" for returning series. I agree with you.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jul 23, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> Syrian orphan sorry to hear North American childhoods ruined by enjoyable film about ghosts


Fantastic. Bookmarked.

I'll deploy this the next time i wander on to G+ and get mauled by the whiny alt.right #freemilo cunts who think that feminism isn't needed in the US because...saudi arabia and burqas (or something). 

That doesn't even make sense and i've forgotten the point I was going to make.

Interesting to hear the film is actually quite entertaining.


----------



## tommers (Jul 23, 2016)

Re-imagining.   It's a Re-imagining. 

Or a Spiritual Successor.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2016)

an _homage_


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 23, 2016)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> Just seen it. I kinda liked it.
> 
> It's mostly well put together but I felt the climax was weak.
> 
> ...



After some thought I can't help but  feel disappointed in the film. If you asked me bits of the film I disliked I could list a bunch  but  if you asked me to name stuff I liked  I would struggle to name more than one or two things.

The film isn't a disaster and I kinda enjoyed it but  it is a disappointment.  I can help but feel a little dubious about the inevitable franchising they are going to attempt.


----------



## Skyfallsz (Jul 23, 2016)

I reckon it might have been a marketing strategy to get everyone to hate it

There was a thing that it was going to be awful, then it turns out that it's ok, lots of people wanted it to be awful. If it hadn't been 'the most hated trailer ever' then probably nobody would have cared


----------



## tommers (Jul 23, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> I reckon it might have been a marketing strategy to get everyone to hate it
> 
> There was a thing that it was going to be awful, then it turns out that it's ok, lots of people wanted it to be awful. If it hadn't been 'the most hated trailer ever' then probably nobody would have cared


Pretty sure it isn't the trailer which has caused the controversy.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 23, 2016)

tommers said:


> Pretty sure it isn't the trailer which has caused the controversy.



The trailer was pretty shit, though, which didn't help matters.


----------



## Ranbay (Aug 6, 2016)

Just back now, wasy better than i thought it would be.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 11, 2016)




----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2016)

the great thing about Fury Road was how both leads said next to fuck all, it was all in what they did and the looks on faces. Scowls featured, but so did a air of bored intensity as the mechanically went ultraviolent


----------



## mwgdrwg (Aug 18, 2016)

Not bad for 20 minutes, then it turns into a steaming pile og horseshit. Absolutely awful film


----------



## strung out (Aug 18, 2016)

Incorrect


----------



## mwgdrwg (Aug 18, 2016)

Fuck no, absolutely awful. Badly written, badly edited, unfunny. Cheap and small looking at times. Makes the original look like high art.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 19, 2016)

mwgdrwg said:


> Fuck no, absolutely awful. Badly written, badly edited, unfunny. Cheap and small looking at times. Makes the original look like high art.


mad max or ghostbusters?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 19, 2016)

In my case I though the new ghost busters was kinda mediocre  but i fucking loved  fury road.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Aug 20, 2016)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> In my case I though the new ghost busters was kinda mediocre  but i fucking loved  fury road.



Fury Road is a superb  film


----------



## mwgdrwg (Aug 20, 2016)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> mad max or ghostbusters?



Ghostbusters. 

I loved every second of Fury Road at the cinema,  and it's a blast on the small screen too.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Aug 20, 2016)

The product placement was awful too, Victorinox even wangled theirs into the plot.  Papa John's pizza and a few others too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2016)

papa johns is good pizza


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 22, 2016)

Not often I can't be arsed to finish a film, especially when I've had a couple of glasses of wine and my tolerance is high. Even though I wasn't tired and had nothing else to do I switched this off and went to bed. Making this film as a standalone was hugely misguided, watching the knowing cameos was painful. A passing of the torch would have been far more interesting a la star wars, (even if the cameos had similar jobs and as much input) but now they've killed it. Embarrassing film. Bets bit was Mike Hat, and that stuck out as like a sore thumb because it was so odd.


----------



## maomao (Nov 7, 2016)

That was crap. Kate McKinnon was terrible and played the whole thing like it was a Ghostbusters parody sketch on SNL or something. The other 3 were okay but the material was too weak. Neither plot nor jokes were strong enough to carry it. Barely worth the effort of downloading, I'd be pissed off if I'd paid to see it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 7, 2016)

I thought I'd be sad that I didn't like it/it was rubbish but I don't even care. I did watch a v crap cam copy though so might invest some time and bandwidth in a decent one and give it another go but blah.


----------



## D'wards (Nov 8, 2016)

I thought it was okay, watchable but forgetable.

In a way, cos of all the bollocks surrounding it, it was hard to have an impartial opinion.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 8, 2016)

I was expecting there to be some jokes in it. There aren't any jokes in it. People say and do things that seem like they're supposed to be funny, but aren't.

Maybe it's a deliberate commentary on the hollow subjectivity and banal cultural norms underlying what we call humour. Or maybe someone wrote the script in their lunchbreak.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 26, 2017)

I just finished watching this and it was funny and touching and well written and genuinely lovely. Action bits the weakest bits but they were good enough. And Kate McKinnon is fab in it, even in a very strong foursome of terrific leads.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Nov 26, 2017)

S☼I said:


> I just finished watching this and it was funny and touching and well written and genuinely lovely. Action bits the weakest bits but they were good enough. And Kate McKinnon is fab in it, even in a very strong foursome of terrific leads.



Are you taking the piss? I agree the four are fab with what they're given....which is an absolute turd of a movie. Well written ffs. Hahaha! Better than any joke in the actual film.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 26, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Are you taking the piss? I agree the four are fab with what they're given....which is an absolute turd of a movie. Well written ffs. Hahaha! Better than any joke in the actual film.


No, I'm not taking the piss. Genuinely really liked it. Why would I bump an old thread simply to be insincere?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 26, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Are you taking the piss? I agree the four are fab with what they're given....which is an absolute turd of a movie. Well written ffs. Hahaha! Better than any joke in the actual film.



Part of the problem, apparently, was that there was so little actual scripting done.  Judd Apatow has created this trend for ad-libs in almost all big Hollywood comedies.  Which works great for 40 year old virgin or bridesmaids, but when a movie is an action ghost story first and a comedy second, surely a tight script is actually called for?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 26, 2017)

Mike Hat's died.


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 9, 2019)

Could this actually be decent?


Currently it is down for a 10th July 2020 UK release date.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 9, 2019)

Stranger busters


----------



## Reno (Dec 10, 2019)

As someone who's never been a fan of the Ghostbusters films, this trailer makes it look like something I may actually want to watch.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 10, 2019)

That does look a lot better than anything I was expected.

Feels a little weird seeing the events of the 1984 Ghostbusters treated like something from a distant, dimly remembered past, but I guess it makes sense, since 1984 is as distant from the present day as that year was from 1949.


----------



## Cid (Dec 10, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> That does look a lot better than anything I was expected.
> 
> Feels a little weird seeing the events of the 1984 Ghostbusters treated like something from a distant, dimly remembered past, but I guess it makes sense, since 1984 is as distant from the present day as that year was from 1949.



Fuck. We're now more distant from 1984 than the release of Stand by Me was from 1959. 7 years more distant.


----------



## Cid (Dec 10, 2019)

This does look a hell of a lot more promising than the reboot. Coming of age stuff is timeless really... And the elements of 80s nostalgia should play well a) with adults and b) with kids who've (I suspect this comparison will keep cropping up) grown up with Stranger Things.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 10, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> That does look a lot better than anything I was expected.
> 
> Feels a little weird seeing the events of the 1984 Ghostbusters treated like something from a distant, dimly remembered past, but I guess it makes sense, since 1984 is as distant from the present day as that year was from 1949.



When I heard that the "grand kids of the original Ghostbusters make a discovery" . . I thought "why have they set it in the future?" . . . And then I thought "oh".


----------



## Reno (Dec 10, 2019)

That's like the childhood portion of recent adaptation of Stephen King's _It_ now being set in the 80s instead of the 50s (like in the book and the mini-series) because that's as long ago as the 50s were then.


----------



## D'wards (Dec 10, 2019)

Whilst it does look good I think its missing the fun/comedy element that really made the first so brilliant (best cinema experience of my life)


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2019)

Watching the original is a weird experience. It's not as funny as I remember and Venkman is a sex pest, which isn't really humorous. That said, this looks like an interesting take, with an 80s feel to it. That shot where Finn Wolfhard goes out into the yard is pure ET! 

Looks like the nostalgia fest continues, what with _Wonder Woman 1984_ out next Summer. It feels the 80s nostalgia vibe has been going on, far longer than the decade itself.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 11, 2019)

To me, it looks like a perfectly competent film that I will have forgotten even exists by the next day.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 11, 2019)

krtek a houby said:


> Watching the original is a weird experience. It's not as funny as I remember and Venkman is a sex pest, which isn't really humorous.



Yep, was weird seeing the original for the first time in decades - Venkman is clearly a sexual predator, everybody is smoking constantly, and I had forgotten about the scene where Dan Aykroyd gets a blowjob from a ghost.


----------



## cybershot (Jul 28, 2021)




----------



## spanglechick (Jul 28, 2021)

cybershot said:


>



That looks quite fun.  I’ll give it a go for sure.  

little marshmallows!


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2021)

I must be among three people in the world who never liked the original, but this looks like it could be alright from the trailer.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 28, 2021)

It looks  OK. 

I think they may have spent quite sometime looking over stranger things's shoulder while in the exam  but that's not a bad choice to copy.

I think the original  works  but it  has  aged  (man that film stock)  and Venkman's antics are particularly questionable.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 29, 2021)

I'm hoping for good things, but I am not expecting them from that trailer. 
Obv they have Acroid, but without the other two that are left it may not feel ghostbusters enough. . . . mind you ghostbusters 2 had them all and that felt really unghostbustery.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 29, 2021)

I accidentally bought the DVD so might give it a watch at some point.


----------



## Storm Fox (Jul 29, 2021)

Reno said:


> I must be among three people in the world who never liked the original, but this looks like it could be alright from the trailer.


Mrs Fox's response, 'There's not enough ghosts in it'


----------

