DominicCobb

yhwx said:

My main complaint in how awkwardly it was handled was when Finn said “That’s one hell of a pilot!” when he possibly couldn’t have known it was Poe. There’s no explanation of how Poe came out either.

Um, what part of the line “That’s one hell of a pilot!” includes the phrase “oh my god Poe is alive!”

And Poe explains when he and Finn reunite that he was thrown from the crash (which is what happened to Finn) and that when he woke up he couldn’t find the fighter or Finn. No more explanation necessary and it’s really not that hard to believe.

Typically it’s hard to care about something as insignificant as a logo but, when it’s something as rad as that Thor logo, it’s hard not to care.

captainsolo said:

I posted in the SWvST thread but figured I’d repost here.
I hope to get TOS on Blu soon and finally start Trekking at some point in the near future.
If I like brainy sci-fi, Forbidden Planet and a few vintage tv shows I should be okay right?

Star Trek is Forbidden Planet. Same idea. Except Star Trek has better characters, but is often a little sillier/cheesier (but not all the time). It’s amazing, watch it yesterday.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Part of me wishes movies were still released on VHS. For example; The Force Awakens would be great to have so I could marathon the OT and TFA without jumping from VHS to Blu Ray quality (since I don’t have a good enough computer to get Harmy’s versions, nor have I ever bought the Blu Ray SEs to legally get them anyway).

If you have a VCR, there should a way to tape it onto a VHS.

I find her pretty funny on SNL.

Empire may not be objectively the best but it is most certainly empirically the best. No debate there.

My opinion on you? Well I think

Jeebus said:

DominicCobb said:

First of all: not a remake.

What is a remake, then? I was under the impression that they were ‘overriding’ the canon of the previous Ghostbusters movies, making this the only Ghostbusters.

Maybe semantics but a remake is a retelling of the same story. This is a reboot. Same concept, different story and characters.

Third of all, your Star Wars comparison is completely inapt. Star Wars was not a comedy so casting comedic actors would obviously not be a good idea. Furthermore, Sandler and James are two of the absolute worst comedic actors “working” today, whereas Ghostbusters features some of the best and freshest comedic talent of today (male or female) in McKinnon, Wiig, McCarthy, Jones, and etc. Whether or not they are at their absolute best here is a different debate.

I guess that’s a matter of opinion, but I’m not a big fan of McCarthy, I think she suffers from Johnny Depp syndrome. She seems to play the same character in every movie, and it starts to get old.

Well I can’t say for sure because I’ve only seen three McCarthy films (this, Bridesmaids, Spy) but she plays quite different characters in each. Actually I was surprised to see her play the straight man here. I though that’d be Wiig but she actually plays a kind of weirdo. McCarthy might be the most normal of the bunch which I wasn’t expecting.

Tyrphanax said:

However: and I kinda began to allude to this before, but I think my issue with this situation isn’t so much that the joke is about vaginal flatulence, but more that they made a gross-out joke at all (fart, queef, poop, dick, ballsack, washing slime out of “every crack”, whatever), and that the decided it was strong enough to put it prominently in a trailer (which sets a tone for the film).

Immature and especially gross-out “humor” has never been my thing (I can’t remember an instance where I’ve found myself enjoying a fart joke) and I always feel like it lowers a film to a certain level of immaturity and unfunniness.

Fair enough. Gross out humor is usually pretty base and unfunny, though I personally like to think that it’s not necessarily true that those jokes can never work. It’s all about context, construction, and delivery. 95% of fart jokes are horribly unfunny but there is that 5% that can make them work in an unexpected way. If it’s actually funny, I’m not going to keep myself from laughing because of the mere fact that it’s a fart joke.

Of course, that isn’t to say that the gross out humor in the new Ghostbusters is funny. Out of the very few gross out jokes in the film that I can think of off the top of my head, I didn’t laugh at any. But this is a film with a lot of jokes so usually they’d move right on to a different joke that I did laugh at so I didn’t really care.

In the case of the queef joke, I didn’t laugh. But, as I mentioned earlier, there was a purpose. I don’t know why they’d want to figure this joke prominently in a trailer as it is does not match the tone of the film. It does, however, as I said, set the tone for McKinnon’s character. So even if it’s not all that funny it still serves a purpose. It’s a small thing, but still.

Jeebus said:

Not everyone mad about the new Ghostbusters is a misogynist but lots of people mad about the new Ghostbusters are.

I don’t think you can know that. I’m not so cynical to say that lots of people hate women.

It’s sad but true. And I’m rarely cynical.

Not to say if this same movie as advertised featured males it wouldn’t get hate but I think the astronomically high levels of hate we’re seeing are clear signs that misogyny is having some impact.

Or it’s because it looked like an awful cash grab remake that shits directly into the mouth of the beloved classic it was based on. As I said, it’s like a shitty Adam Sandler remake of STAR WARS. Do you want Kevin James as Han Solo? I don’t.

First of all: not a remake.
Second of all: if any film in this franchise is a cash grab that shits directly into the mouth of the “beloved classic” it is Ghostbusters II.
Third of all, your Star Wars comparison is completely inapt. Star Wars was not a comedy so casting comedic actors would obviously not be a good idea. Furthermore, Sandler and James are two of the absolute worst comedic actors “working” today, whereas Ghostbusters features some of the best and freshest comedic talent of today (male or female) in McKinnon, Wiig, McCarthy, Jones, and etc. Whether or not they are at their absolute best here is a different debate.

Not to belittle you guys but it’s unfortunate that the debate I’m having about this movie is whether it’s just some piece of garbage that should never have been made. I mostly liked the film but I do have complaints that I’d love to talk about but it’s a shame when the conversation is just about whether it’s completely unfunny (which is most certainly not the case) and not a deeper talk about the filmmaking and where things went wrong there (though of course I know people some people are picking up on that but perhaps don’t quite know how to pin point what’s not so great).

Well please do talk about it. That’s what this thread is for. I’m basing my thoughts solely on the trailers and I’ve seen people say that the trailers made the movie look a lot worse than it actually was.

First of all Paul Feig is not a great director. Don’t get me wrong, he has great comedic timing and always gets funny performances out of his actors but there’s not much cinematic talent beyond that. Everything everything is shot blandly. Which might work for something like Bridesmaids but for a supernatural action adventure it falls a little flat. There’s nothing remotely scary. No suspense. There’s a good deal of action but it is pretty uninteresting. It’s just a basic comedy that happens to be about people who fight ghosts. Ultimately, even if people can’t put their finger on it, I think this is the biggest reason why people are saying it doesn’t live up to the original. They may think it’s because it’s unfunny (because well it’s a comedy and if you don’t like it as much as another comedy it must be because it’s not as funny, right?) but that’s not true. This movie is funny. Of course comedy is subjective and not every joke lands but this movie is dense with jokes (I can say objectively there are more jokes in this than in the original) and thankfully the large majority do land.

There are other script problems (underdeveloped characters and relationships) and the plot is rather unspecial but the film moves so quickly you don’t really care.

If you’re just watching looking for a fun/funny movie - you’re in luck.

As for “shitting” on the sacred and all holy original film, I’d say there’s none of it except for one small thing that annoyed me. Obviously it’s a reboot so they can do what they want, but that there was no respect for crossing the streams rubbed me the wrong way.

Jeebus said:

DominicCobb said:

Agreed but the fact that this was maybe the only queef joke I think I’ve seen in any movie tells me that there’s a taboo there

I don’t know how that’s what you would get out of that. It tells me that most writers recognize that queef jokes aren’t funny and decided not to make any.

I don’t even know why I bothered bringing this up. It’s all really besides the point.

Anyway, you’re honestly telling me that all the writers of movies with dick jokes, nut sack jokes, fart jokes, etc. drew the line at queef jokes because of course those aren’t funny?

Tyrphanax said:

Women don’t need to make queef jokes to be silly and immature (and actually funny) though. I can be silly and immature (and actually funny) without making a joke about my balls or some other male-specific “gross-out” thing.

Agreed but the fact that this was maybe the only queef joke I think I’ve seen in any movie tells me that there’s a taboo there and however immature (and unfunny) I think there’s something to appreciate about the taboo being broken.

Yeah it’s silly and immature but feminism isn’t all about female empowerment, it’s about female equality. So as dumb as it is it’s good to see women being silly and immature too.

Bump bitches.

Honestly probably the first thought I had when he pulled away his hood was “holy shit that is a beautiful man.”
(if I’m being honest I think it’s mostly the hair)

TV’s Frink said:

I’m not gonna defend a queef joke. But luckily those were very few and far between.

To be clear I’m not necessarily defending it (and again there was only one) just saying that it’s not quite as dumb as “queefs are funny” and it could even be said this is character building (pretty sure it’s McKinnon’s first line in the film which means it’s saying something about her character). Again, I’m not defending it, just saying it’s not simply gross out humor for the sake of gross out humor.

I also think there’s something to be said about the mere inclusion of a queef joke as something resembling progress in how we deal with certain feminine taboos. Obviously it’s immature but it’s equality in immaturity. It’s not quite the same thing as the farting in Blazing Saddles but it’s along those lines if you get what I mean.

Of course I’m now going far too in depth on the subject that the fact remains that you shouldn’t really take a snippet of a queef joke in a trailer as evidence that a movie sucks. It’s not a great comparison for a couple reasons but let’s not forget that there’s a burping alien in Return of the Jedi.

Tyrphanax said:

There’s definitely an element of confirmation bias. But when all the trailers come out looking just atrocious, and then reviews from people I generally agree with on movies come out saying that it’s just as bad as the trailers, I feel pretty justified in thinking I was right. I mean, there’s “updating the humor” and then there’s replacing humor with “queef” jokes. If that’s humor for younger generations, then I guess I’m older than I thought.

What I’ll say is I avoided the trailers because I hate trailers for many reasons, an obvious one bring that they are typically misleading. Comedy trailers tend to be especially bad.

For example, by my count there’s exactly one queef joke in the film, and it’s less “hey haha queefs are so funny” and more “wow this character is a freakin weirdo because she thinks queefs are funny,” it’s basically part of her introduction and gives you an idea of what sort of character she’ll be (side note, said character is also probably the main reason to see the film - she’s so strange but so funny, gotta love Kate McKinnon). Context is key.

Tyrphanax said:

DominicCobb said:

Tyrphanax said:

Ghostbusters summed up by RLM.

Jesus. Skimmed through some of that and it was some of the most obnoxious “film criticism” I’ve ever seen. I hope people don’t trust stuff like this to determine whether or not a film is good.

Shrug.

I’ll post a full review once I actually see it (as soon as I don’t have to pay much for it), but every negative review I’ve seen of it confirms everything I’ve felt about it since seeing the first trailer.

Confirmation bias? Not saying you’ll like it or that it’s amazing and incapable of being criticized (far from it) but I’d suggest the best thing to do if you watch is keep an open mind.

I think the essential problem here is that the kind of comedy is just different here than in the original. TFA was a reboot for a new generation (though of course also with sequel status, though I doubt if the new film was a sequel the hatred would be much less) and the action and style was thusly updated for the new generation. Ghostbusters updates the comedy. Thing is, action isn’t all that different now, but comedy changes drastically over time. For the people who were young in 1984, this comedy isn’t for you. It’s for the people who are young now (and hopefully for some of the older people who can still appreciate it).

As for the sexism thing, I realize that’s not the only reason people are angry but it’s definitely a reason. Just because personally you don’t care that it’s women doesn’t mean lots of other people don’t. There are plenty of commenters out there who make that clear. Not everyone mad about the new Ghostbusters is a misogynist but lots of people mad about the new Ghostbusters are. Not to say if this same movie as advertised featured males it wouldn’t get hate but I think the astronomically high levels of hate we’re seeing are clear signs that misogyny is having some impact.

Not to belittle you guys but it’s unfortunate that the debate I’m having about this movie is whether it’s just some piece of garbage that should never have been made. I mostly liked the film but I do have complaints that I’d love to talk about but it’s a shame when the conversation is just about whether it’s completely unfunny (which is most certainly not the case) and not a deeper talk about the filmmaking and where things went wrong there (though of course I know people some people are picking up on that but perhaps don’t quite know how to pin point what’s not so great).

Tyrphanax said:

Ghostbusters summed up by RLM.

Jesus. Skimmed through some of that and it was some of the most obnoxious “film criticism” I’ve ever seen. I hope people don’t trust stuff like this to determine whether or not a film is good.

yhwx said:

This is for the Democratic National Convention:

Wow, they even got a disabled guy in there. These libtard PC SJWs are just trying too hard to appeal to appeal to the masses.

I would never blame Paul Ryan for the pic. Other things, sure. But the pic is neither surprising nor problematic. It’s just exposing an unfortunate fact.

TV’s Frink said:

I think he’s saying we’re both little babies that shit in our diapers and smell because our deadbeat parents don’t change us.

Oh well then I guess he’s right.

Tyrphanax said:

The new Ghostbusters is the anime of recent films.

That’s going a little far.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

yhwx said:

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/971307

MiniFrink thinks he’s funny now.

History has shown that whether he is or isn’t is completely separate from whether or not you think he is.

Your history maybe. The fact is, his crap smells just like yours does so either he’s your Mini, or you two share the same used diapers.

Can I ask for some clarification? It seems to me like you’re implying yhwx is a Frink sock. Just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt to confirm you do not actually believe this impossibly stupid thing.

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

imperialscum said:

Neglify said:

1. Where the black people at?

I don’t see why there should necessarily be black people in the photo.

Of course not. The people in that picture are smart and respectable young professionals. They’re going places. No room for delinquent street youth in that pic (or, for that matter, sweaty landscapers, pork fried rice delivery people, or other such minor and unimportant bums).

My statement wasn’t related to that specific photo. My statement was universal.

Let’s say a photo is taken in Europe. Making such question would be stupid. As stupid as asking where are white people in a photo taken somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.

Even for a photo taken in US, making such question is pushy to say the least.

White people in US: 63%.

White people in that picture: 100%.

imperialscum said:

Neglify said:

1. Where the black people at?

I don’t see why there should necessarily be black people in the photo.

Of course not. The people in that picture are smart and respectable young professionals. They’re going places. No room for delinquent street youth in that pic (or, for that matter, sweaty landscapers, pork fried rice delivery people, or other such minor and unimportant bums).