DominicCobb

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

Can I bitch about all the new Ghostbusters bitching? So it the other day and it was quite funny. Was it amazing? No. Was it terrible? Absolutely not. There is nothing god awful about it or really anything about it that should make anyone angry. It’s very much a reboot and not a remake. Though the concept is the same and there are a number of nods, the plot and characters are different as is the style of humor. The latter point is obviously where the dividing line comes in because this is much more of a comedy than the original ever was and if this kind of comedy isn’t your thing (and no I would not necessarily call it low brow) than the movie isn’t for you obviously.

Point being, if you’re not into it, don’t see it. But there’s nothing to hate about it and I think maybe a few too many people have sticks up their asses about the mere fact that it exists and are simply refusing to entertain the possibility that it might actually be an enjoyable movie-going experience. I understand that some people have a deep love for the original but to me it’s no sacred cow and while I love it a lot I would never rank it as an untouchable all-timer. In my mind it’s a fun movie with a cool concept so I really don’t mind seeing a new movie take the same concept and run in a different direction with it.

You’re wrong about all of this. And for proof, I present a review from Milo Yiannopoulos, appropriately posted on the only website unafraid to tell the truth, Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/18/milo-reviews-ghostbusters/

“Teenage Boys With Tits” indeed! Down with SJWs!

Oh shit that guy has no problem telling it like it is, no apologies. He must be right!

Whether or not you prefer ESB, XWHY’s point doesn’t make sense.

yhwx said:

Resolve the general “Bag o’ Hate” that has been going around in Off Topic for these last couple of months.

I hate this suggestion.

Does it count as a joke if it’s completely out of nowhere and not at all funny?

Jetrell Fo said:

You obviously have nothing better to do if you think a thread like this will liven up off-topic. It’s even no surprise that MiniFrink is the first to post a response.

What a waste.

No sense of humor confirmed.

(well I guess technically it was confirmed a long time ago but this was a solid reminder.)

moviefreakedmind said:

I didn’t even like Fallout 3.

No soul confirmed.

TV’s Frink said:

Ghostbusters (2016)

My biggest fear, based on the trailers, was that there would be a ton of gross-out humor. Luckily it was all in the trailers. The humor was mostly spot-on, the cast was solid, the cameos were fun, the sfx was fine, and Kate McKinnon and Chris Hemsworth stole the show.

My wife agreed with all of the above, but also said it was great to see women talking like actual women, not wearing sexy outfits, not going undercover as strippers, not being catty, and not being ditzy.

I think when they’re a little older, my daughters will LOVE this.

8/10

Agree with this.

Can I bitch about all the new Ghostbusters bitching? So it the other day and it was quite funny. Was it amazing? No. Was it terrible? Absolutely not. There is nothing god awful about it or really anything about it that should make anyone angry. It’s very much a reboot and not a remake. Though the concept is the same and there are a number of nods, the plot and characters are different as is the style of humor. The latter point is obviously where the dividing line comes in because this is much more of a comedy than the original ever was and if this kind of comedy isn’t your thing (and no I would not necessarily call it low brow) than the movie isn’t for you obviously.

Point being, if you’re not into it, don’t see it. But there’s nothing to hate about it and I think maybe a few too many people have sticks up their asses about the mere fact that it exists and are simply refusing to entertain the possibility that it might actually be an enjoyable movie-going experience. I understand that some people have a deep love for the original but to me it’s no sacred cow and while I love it a lot I would never rank it as an untouchable all-timer. In my mind it’s a fun movie with a cool concept so I really don’t mind seeing a new movie take the same concept and run in a different direction with it.

yhwx said:

I don’t think that movies should be judged on any sort of ‘world building’ quality: They should be judged by the actual movie, context be damned.

Yeah but you’re missing the point. ESB out of context is nothing without the context of SW. So if you base it just on that movie itself it isn’t quite as great as SW by itself with its world building.

Tyrphanax said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Lord Haseo: You have to throw that bullshit worldview of yours straight into the dumpster, because it’s a bunch of crap. Do what you do and be satisfied with it.

Resign yourself to the bottom rung?

That’s what it sounds like. Don’t hate on Haseo for aiming high.

moviefreakedmind said:

I always assumed that Palpatine looked old and horrible in Jedi because he was already 80 years old in the prequels, and Return of the Jedi was almost 30 years later. I guess it’s because his face melted though.

That was something they fucked up. Realistically they could have gone one of two ways with it.

A) He’s already very old in the PT so in the OT he’s wrinkly cause the dark side has kept him alive past his expiration date. It seems like they were going this way in AOTC where Palps is on his way towards wrinkly (but then they dialed in back in ROTS - where he looks much younger - and necessitated the big wrinkly transformation).
B) The wrinkly is his true form which he is hiding. In fairness to ROTS, this is a legitimate interpretation of what happened.

But what ROTS really seems to be showing is that Palps turned wrinkly because he got hit with his own lighting. Or wait maybe it was because he was going crazy with the power of the dark side? I’m not sure. Did George even know what that was all about?

Either way, the real travesty of it all was the atrocious ROTS make up.

Of course, if you’re a guy and you don’t want to have a child, you literally have to do nothing. At all. Women have been biologically given the burden of being stuck with the consequences. It’s easy to tell them what they should and shouldn’t do when you yourself are burden less.

CarboniteSolo said:

DominicCobb said:

CarboniteSolo said:

Forgive me if somebody already stated this

I think you’re safe. Can’t imagine why anyone else would have suggested that.

You don’t have to be rude. It was just an idea I had.

Well, respectfully, I think your idea is rather silly. Rogue One is trying to be its own thing and distance itself stylistically (if not narratively) from the main saga. The worst thing they could do we be to feature footage from other SW films especially the prequels.

ATMachine said:

…a SW thought so random, it doesn’t even appear to relate to SW at first.

Or ever?

At this point I really hope impscum is just trolling. Because, if not, he must live a very sad life. His dedication to “truth” and “facts” leave him missing out on the subtleties of genuine human interactions. If he thinks this makes him better than others he’s a whole hell of a lot dumber than he thinks he is. Must be a truly lonely existence.

imperialscum said:

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Handman said:

The women I have met in my life have enjoyed anime more than me; in fact, they’re the ones who initially introduced me to it. So, in all honesty, this could be applied to you as well.

If they aren’t offended by what they should be offended by then they are just ignorant and need to be educated by a man who knows better. The hypocrisy is astounding.

It’s not hypocrisy. All anime is terrible and no one, man or woman, should watch it. That’s a very consistent position.

You didn’t even get the point.

There’s no point because my original post was taken out of context. It had nothing to do with anime.

It is past time you stop embarrassing yourself.

Says the guy who openly admits to not only watching but enjoying anime.

I don’t know if it’s more funny or more sad that Fo1 thinks the majority of the forum is Frink socks.

Oh I didn’t even think Daisy was in costume there. Though I guess it’s possible.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Fo, I don’t have any socks and either show your proof otherwise or shut the fuck up about it already.

This is also exactly why you have such a hard time making and keeping friends. You don’t know how to talk to people. You show by the way you post that basic decorum obviously shouldn’t apply to you though you will most certainly get all “shut the fuck” up about it with others.

As for the socks, you are not the only one guilty of having one so for you to think the issue only applies to you is very telling though the TV’sFrinksComputer comes to mind as a cloned you.

You’re an arrogant, narcissistic, and down right shitty person here on the forum and you are put in check far less than you deserve.

There, I’ve said it, now put a sock in it would you? Or do I need to buy you sandals and a box of tissues before that happens?

It’s crazy how delusional you are.

Don’t presume to know what Frank wants, XWHY.

CarboniteSolo said:

Forgive me if somebody already stated this

I think you’re safe. Can’t imagine why anyone else would have suggested that.

Looks like Poe Dameron pulls a Lando and raids Han’s closet in this movie. How rude!
https://twitter.com/carrieffisher/status/751524647385100288
(seriously though looking great)

Part of me wonders if anyone high up even knows Carrie’s posting this stuff. Who cares!

Rian Johnson’s been posting stuff too. Here’s the holo chess table:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BHj0HzPBmlG/?taken-by=riancjohnson

crpl_hicks said:

I know this is wayyy off topic, but since this forum is full of Star Wars Art lovers, has anyone noticed that Alec Guiness is missing from the Poster depicting Key characters from the first 6 SW?? Unless I am blind? I know, Ewan is there, but come on…No Old Obi Wan!?

I was thinking of making my own & photoshopping Sir Alec in?

You’ll notice no character is represented twice. That isn’t to say some of the characters included aren’t questionable (Rogue 2? really?).

Pegg’s got a great response to Takei: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/08/star-trek-beyond-simon-pegg-sulu-george-takei

Tobar said:

The character of Sulu is very close to Takei’s heart. The fan film World Enough and Time (Highly recommended) stars Takei and solidly cements Sulu as heterosexual. While not canonical, Takei is very proud of this production and more than likely considers it part of his personal canon for the character. For the filmmakers to approach Takei for his input/blessing on something that they state is meant to honor him and then completely disregard his wishes is disrespectful.

That’s fair. I get where he’s coming from.

Personally I’ve never been crazy huge into Trek so I’ll admit to not knowing the canon inside and out. But nothing I’ve seen contradicts making Sulu gay. Unless I missed a part where Sulu made it clear he only had eyes for women, or unless the new film makes it clear he only has eyes for men, I still don’t see where the continuity issue is.

It’ll probably depend on how the new film handles it but I’m sure it’s not hard to believe that the timeline divergence could cause him to end up in a different relationship.

Not to mention the fact that this alternate timeline already strains credibility in many ways of actually being based on the original timeline anyway. I find it easier to enjoy if you just watch the films as straight up reboots. In that case there’s no problem at all.