Support NeoGAF

[Coffee Dog]

Once you start saying "It isn't your dad's ghostbusters, its something totally different", you have to start wondering why bother defending the usage of the IP at all.

Is it ghostbusters? Of course it isnt. It's an entirely different movie with the same name. The IP is being used for money/awareness reasons because of a lack of faith in female led blockbusters. End of story.

 

[God Dayumm]

Yes. Trailers are always an accurate measure of a movie.

Great Movies With Questionable Trailers

Five trailers that were better than their movies

8 Trailers that were better than the actual movie

There's tons of articles on this.

Btw, have you seen the trailer for the original Ghostbusters? It was on the DVD release and presumably all re-releases after. It sucked.

Good. Then there is hope Feig moves on from his typical slop for this movie

 

[brandonh83]

Is it ghostbusters? Of course it isnt. It's an entirely different movie with the same name. The IP is being used for money/awareness reasons because of a lack of faith in female led blockbusters. End of story.

A lot of it actually looks similar to the original in some ways, and it clearly depicts four characters going after ghosts with scientifically created tools. That's what Ghostbusters is, and that's clearly what the trailers are depicting. There's no fucking way someone could watch these trailers and not immediately know that it's a Ghostbusters movie.

So yes, it is Ghostbusters. The concept remains the same. The style is more deliberate, colorful and energetic compared to the original, it isn't as laid back in tone or comedy, but that doesn't make it not Ghostbusters.

 

[MHWilliams]

There's some um, people out there that are chauvinistic and sexist and have irrational hatred towards this movie solely because of the female cast.

I'd argue there's a shit-tonne more people who just think this movie looks shit based on the trailers and couldn't give a damn about the actors gender.

You can go through the YouTube comments and find a ton of people who are quite sexist. Outside of that, there are a number of people who simply don't want to see studios touch Ghostbusters. Outside of that, people who think the market is poor.

Outside of the internet? Most people don't give a shit or want to see it.

Fandango has just released the results of their annual “Most Anticipated Summer Films” poll.

Sony’s big-budget Ghostbusters reboot tops the list for summer comedies, which makes sense as it’s by far the “biggest” comedy coming out this season and it is a “have your cake and eat it too” hybrid of fantasy franchise reboot and star-driven comedy.

Once you start saying "It isn't your dad's ghostbusters, its something totally different", you have to start wondering why bother defending the usage of the IP at all.

Is it ghostbusters? Of course it isnt. It's an entirely different movie with the same name. The IP is being used for money/awareness reasons because of a lack of faith in female led blockbusters. End of story.

That's pretty much true of all Hollywood IP usage. And again, the name came first, the female-led part came second. Sony was making a Ghostbusters film regardless, Feig was just the first director that said yes.

 

[Nekofrog]

Once you start saying "It isn't your dad's ghostbusters, its something totally different", you have to start wondering why bother defending the usage of the IP at all.

Is it ghostbusters? Of course it isnt. It's an entirely different movie with the same name. The IP is being used for money/awareness reasons because of a lack of faith in female led blockbusters. End of story.

This is one of the most misinformed posts I've seen in a while. Who are you to say it isn't Ghostbusters? It's Ghostbusters because it's called Ghostbusters, has the official seal of approval of the remaining living writer of the original, and is produced by the same studio.

This is Ghostbusters. Get over it.

 

[heliosRAzi]

The trailers say it all. Unless those have absolutely nothing to do with the actual movie.

Trailers aren't the movie. They are marketing geared to make you want to see the movie. If a trailer fails to make you want to see the movie, that's on the trailer and the marketing team.

Although, some people might have a problem with you saying that the movie is crap based on the trailer and haven't seen the movie. Trailers can look great, but the movie would be mediocre. Trailers can be bad and the movie is phenomenal. Still, that's all down to the marketing. Some people will find it best to watch a movie before declaring it's bad or not, but I'd rather not have people part with their money just so they can have an opinion on a film.

 

[Coffee Dog]

A lot of it actually looks similar to the original in some ways, and it clearly depicts four characters going after ghosts with scientifically created tools. That's what Ghostbusters is, and that's clearly what the trailers are depicting. There's no fucking way someone could watch these trailers and not immediately know that it's a Ghostbusters movie.

And Robocop 2013 is still a movie about a robotic policeman.

It's a different movie with a different ensemble, tone, direction style, and creative team. It's not a continuation of ghostbusters. It is something new.

 

[brandonh83]

It's a different movie with a different ensemble, tone, direction style, and creative team. It's not a continuation of ghostbusters. It is something new.

Right. It's a new Ghostbusters. But it's clearly Ghostbusters.

 

[Lothar]

But how do we know it is a bad remake off a 2 minute trailer? Feig doesn't have a bad track record of films. That's the thing. People are saying "Look at the shitty trailer" but they've been down on this for over a year. The cast announcement thread here was 25 pages long...that's why people are saying the review is silly. You can not be interested in a film all you want, but when you start making claims like it isn't this or that based off two minutes of cut together footage, when you haven't read the script or seen the film, people call you out on your shit. It's just like people that see the Call of Duty trailers, say all the reasons why they're done playing the franchise, and then buy it so they can complain about it.

But he says in the video "Maybe the actual movie is better than the trailer, maybe it's good, it's a possibility." That's a real quote. He isn't saying he knows it will be bad. He's just saying he doesn't want to see it because the trailer looks like it will be bad. Really his video was that mild.

 

[Fall Into The GAF]

I was initially surprised James got as much hate as he did, but considering the booming cottage industry of clickbait "thinkpieces" like these, it all began to, uh, click with me. Especially considering how people perceive the Ghostbusters franchise as some sacred cow. If the movie (at best) ends up being just OK, within a month everyone is going to forget about and go on to bitch about something else.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Now I want an after credits stinger where Dan Aykroyd in a very flat and monotone delivery says "geez, you girls sure are some good Ghostbusters. Here is my antique proton pack as commemoration of your good ghostbusting."

 

[PKrockin]

You should keep reading, because there's way more to the article than that.

It's not really about James Rolfe. That's part of the reason there was even a backlash to his video: None of this is about James Rolfe. Or anyone who identifies with James Rolfe. Or whatever the Frozen equivalent of James Rolfe is. It's not about those people, but about people being very certain (and very loudly certain) that it should be about them! And anything that isn't taking them and their percieved ownership into account (and taking it very seriously) is wrong and unfair, both to them and to the thing they're such a big fan of.

Rolfe is simply the easy in to discussing this overinflated sense of ownership. But he's not the real subject of the article. We are.

Great, I read the article now. Nearly half of it is taking potshots at James, implying he is a sexist when if anything his was one of the least questionable videos on Ghostbusters that had a negative standpoint on the movie. They didn't bother gathering the slightest bit of context on him or his work but are fine with blindly dragging his name through the mud as long as they can make their point that nerds should just stop complaining about what they think are bad ideas. Michael Bay was not concerned about what hardcore Transformers fans with nostalgia goggles had to say about his movie. Nintendo clearly does not give a fuck, going by how they manage Paper Mario. I think it's more discussion-stifling to essentially tell fans to shut up about something because "it's for the mainstream" than to be worried about billion dollar corporations not listening to a small niche of the audience who aren't their target market.

This is not to say the fans are always right. Obviously they aren't. This is not to say fans aren't whiny and annoying a lot of the time. They are.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Right. It's a new Ghostbusters. But it's clearly Ghostbusters.

It is certainly labelled as a ghostbusters product despite a lack of similarities to that film beyond some visual iconography, yeah.

It's an almost entirely original female led action comedy film that wouldnt be getting this sort of attention or platform otherwise. Using the ghostbusters IP for this was a smart move by Feig, it just isnt at all suprising when the initial reaction is "this doesnt look like the thing its claiming to be", despite this really being a pretty good outcome. The inevitably awkward ghostbusters reboot was always going to be causing these conversations. I think we shouldnt downplay the film's distance from the original as its the only thing that makes the movie worth a shit.

 

[Nekofrog]

But he says in the video "Maybe the actual movie is better than the trailer, maybe it's good, it's a possibility." That's a real quote. He isn't saying he knows it will be bad. He's just saying he doesn't want to see it because the trailer looks like it will be bad. Really his video was that mild.

Reading your post, the way you explain it makes James sound pretty petty. "it could be good, i'll never know because i'm basing my entire thought process on a trailer".

that's one of the worst things you can do in movies.

 

[brandonh83]

It is certainly labelled as a ghostbusters product despite a lack of similarities to that film beyond some visual iconography, yeah.

This is blatantly incorrect. The concept is the same and the trailers show a whole plethora of Ghostbusters-related elements, things you can correlate right back to the IP:

Scientists, ghosts, proton accelerators, a headquarters, a receptionist, the same fucking vehicle, Slimer, a big thing that is pretty much the new Stay Puft...? I mean, that's not enough? What else does it need to be considered (to you) Ghostbusters? It's about three scientists/engineers and one outsider (like the original) creating equipment to help them capture the paranormal-- and eventually save New York from a devastating paranormal attack.

I just have absolutely no idea where you're coming from. It has all the elements. Having a more exaggerated tone and style doesn't strip away the title or iconography. I know what Ghostbusters is. I grew up with the shit. The original movie is one of my favorites. I did the whole Saturday morning cartoon thing and had most of the toys. This looks and feels like Ghostbusters. It doesn't really "feel" like the original film (though there are clearly elements and callbacks), but that doesn't make it not feel like something that can be part of the property.

 

[Coffee Dog]

This is blatantly incorrect. The concept is the same and the trailers show a whole plethora of Ghostbusters-related elements.

Scientists, ghosts, proton accelerators, a headquarters, a receptionist, the same fucking vehicle, Slimer, a big thing that is pretty much the new Stay Puft...? I mean, that's not enough? What else does it need to be considered (to you) Ghostbusters? It's about three scientists/engineers and one outsider (like the original) creating equipment to help them capture the paranormal-- and eventually save New York from a devastating paranormal attack.

I just have absolutely no idea where you're coming from. It has all the elements. Having a more exaggerated tone and style doesn't strip away the title or iconography.

Once again: Robocop 2013 is still a movie about a robotic policeman. That does not make it anything like (or anywhere near enjoyable as) the robocop movies of old.

 

[MHWilliams]

Ghostbusters 2 was a commercial film on the service but you could still see it had a lot of loved poured into it, Akroyd made sure of that, it still had a good script, still had a good back story it was just more on the nose with the humor and relied more on special effects and the "commercial" aspect than the first one.


I mean I don't want to make a full judgement until I have watched the new movie but based in the trailers it feels like a full cash in with very little "love" poured into it, I mean I could be wrong (I hope I am and I eat my words) but it feels like this is Ghostbusters by name and identity only if that makes sense?

Also I know Murray was the reason this franchise was dragged through the mud for so many years and that's half the problem, I love Murray but I always though Akroyd should have just done the third without him, I guess it was never as simple as that though.

After a while I just didn't want a third, when they first announced this movie I didn't know who they had cast (I actually thought it may have been Seth Rogan and crew because if the rumours) but I instantly thought it was a bad idea, just don't even bother doing another one was my initial opinion.

But quite frankly, I love the cast Feig picked and it sort of made me think "You know what? This could work, it could be fresh, maybe they are the daughters of the Ghostbusters? Maybe they will hand the business down to them? Or maybe they have started their own Ghostbusters business after they passed away and we see they original cast as like "ghost cameos"

Any number of scenarios were running through my mind but seeing what I have seen in the trailers it just made me kinda feel like this is straight cash in, like they could have done such a better job (based on he leak script) so many possibilities for what I consider to be a very talented and funny cast.

I mean it could still turn out that way, I hope it does but I just get this feeling I will walk away from it thinking "What could have been"

Saying that, as long as I leave entertained I won't mind.

I get that. Honestly, the weird part for me is going over threads like this for a movie I'm probably not going to watch in theaters.

From everything I've seen, Feig is trying to do the best he can on the property his way. I've only seen two of his films, Bridesmaids and Spy, both of which actually surprised me with how enjoyable they were. No film is going to be the first Ghostbusters, which was lightning in a bottle, but everything I've seen tells me the production team is trying to hit that mark again. I expect it will be a decent film given Feig's past work.

I hope Feig sticks the landing, because this is the life of Ghostbusters going forward. It's got a lot riding on it from what it is and Sony already has a script for a film with a different team in the hopper if this does well. Aykroyd has been waiting forever and this is his chance. More than that, I'd like to see more directors take a shot at the property in the future. There's so much you can do with "Ghostbusters" that hasn't been explored in film. (In comics, they've done a ton.)

Reading your post, the way you explain it makes James sound pretty petty. "it could be good, i'll never know because i'm basing my entire thought process on a trailer".

that's one of the worst things you can do in movies.

To be fair, trailers do try to get you to make a positive judgement on a film and they can fail in that. "Trailers aren't always indicate of movie quality" and "deciding not to see a movie based on a trailer is fine" are both solid statements.

Once again: Robocop 2013 is still a movie about a robotic policeman. That does not make it anything like (or anywhere near enjoyable as) the robocop movies of old.

Remove the Robocop branding and people would say "That looks like Robocop". Studios understand this, hence the reason they use the branding if they have it.

 

[brandonh83]

Once again: Robocop 2013 is still a movie about a robotic policeman. That does not make it anything like (or anywhere near enjoyable as) the robocop movies of old.

Yeah, you keep bringing up Robocop and it keeps failing to counter a thing I've said.

It doesn't matter what examples you throw around. I'm talking about this film in particular.

 

[JimJamJones]

#GiveDoctorWhoADogThatTalks

So, basically Clara?

 

[andythinkpad]

Female Ghostbusters hate is nothing compare to the hate GRRM get from being a lazy ass.

 

[BassForever]

The film may be great but the trailer did not convince a lot of people the film was going to be worth seeing. Obviously reviews and word of mouth once it's released could change people's minds but as of right now people have every right to say the film looks terrible based upon the trailers and that they don't want/plan to see it. This doesn't make them unconscious sexist and while people cry about "entitled man babies" fuck that nonsense no studio is entitled to anyone's time or money.

 

[Lothar]

Reading your post, the way you explain it makes James sound pretty petty. "it could be good, i'll never know because i'm basing my entire thought process on a trailer".

that's one of the worst things you can do in movies.

I feel the same way. The exorcist reference joke alone with one of the characters doing "The power of Christ compels you" line makes me not want to see it. I don't want to pay to be tortured for 2 hours.

Someone write an article about me.

 

[jstripes]

Precisely. The article even mentions that Hollywood is riding a huge wave of nostalgia to sell tickets.

It's one quarter nostalgia, and three quarters "This movie made tons of money. If we remake it maybe we'll make tons of money again."

A large portion of ticket sales are going to be to people who weren't even born yet in the '80s, and very possibly have never seen the original.


It's like when they did the awful remake of The Pink Panther. Most people my age had never seen any of the originals.

 

[Eidan]

I feel the same way. The exorcist reference joke alone with one of the characters doing "The power of Christ compels you" line makes me not want to see it. I don't want to pay to be tortured for 2 hours.

Someone write an article about me.

"He complains about Game of Thrones and the new Ghostbusters a lot. Must be great at parties."

That's all I got.

 

[MHWilliams]

The film may be great but the trailer did not convince a lot of people the film was going to be worth seeing. Obviously reviews and word of mouth once it's released could change people's minds but as of right now people have every right to say the film looks terrible based upon the trailers and that they don't want/plan to see it. This doesn't make them unconscious sexist and while people cry about "entitled man babies" fuck that nonsense no studio is entitled to anyone's time or money.

No, the actual sexist commentary, including "An all-woman team of Ghostbusters is gimmick" is what people are talking about. Call a spade a spade and all that.

A few points:

- Rolfe's video was really nothing. I wouldn't call him sexist.
- Rolfe's video is a good point if you're writing an article about general fan entitlement
- The first trailer wasn't great
- You can decided not to watch the film without being sexist.
- This film has been getting sexist hate from the beginning, so calling some of the backlash as sexist is completely on point. People talk about a "perfect storm" while ignoring the hurricane that preceded it, because... I actually don't know why.
- You can find this hate rather easily. From YouTube comments right now:

why put women ? women are a failure in comedy
NOT WATCHING OR SUPPORTING ANY FILM OR TV SHOW THAT'S OBVIOUSLY ATTEMPTING TO EMASCULATE MEN AND SHOW WOMEN AS THE MORE DOMINANT, ALPHA SEX. Women, if you hate being feminine so much fine, be a lesbian. But trying to emasculate men in cinema only hurts your cause because we're not listening or watching.
Sony you are still deleting comments like it makes a difference. You're a sad pathetic company and we know all your dirty secrets. No one wants to see a feminazi propaganda film using the original Ghostbusters as a attraction. Sony and Columbia Pictures will never get a dime of my money. Just say no to reboots! And yeah Sony go ahead and delete this cause it will be reposted. ��

That was literally among the first loaded comments without clicking "Load More". It's not hard. The first comments on the trailer were equally poor. This is not a small contingent of people, which is why the minimizing of this is so perplexing.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

Reading your post, the way you explain it makes James sound pretty petty. "it could be good, i'll never know because i'm basing my entire thought process on a trailer".

that's one of the worst things you can do in movies.

There's more to it, but really who cares what some guy on the internet says about a movie. I like AVGN and watch a lot of movies, but I couldn't give a shit what he says about movies. I don't get why he is getting so much flak for posting his opinion and it's ridiculous that he's become the figurehead of the haters by the hater-haters.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

This is one of the most misinformed posts I've seen in a while. Who are you to say it isn't Ghostbusters? It's Ghostbusters because it's called Ghostbusters, has the official seal of approval of the remaining living writer of the original, and is produced by the same studio.

This is Ghostbusters. Get over it.

Same name makes it the franchise...got it.

Robocop and Total Recall were also called by the same name and I don't give a shit about the remakes over the originals so...

What are you saying, man?

 

[Nekofrog]

Same name makes it the franchise...got it.

Robocop and Total Recall were also called by the same name and I don't give a shit about the remakes over the originals so...

What are you saying, man?

I'm saying that this is Ghostbusters.

Get used to it. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. Your feelings are irrelevant to what the product is.

 

[Lothar]

"He complains about Game of Thrones and the new Ghostbusters a lot. Must be great at parties."

That's all I got.

That's a pretty accurate article.

We haven't had a GoT debate this season, we need to have one.

Imagine if it was said everyone just hated Dorne because the characters were women.

Imagine that GoT showed a trailer for Dorne complete with the "Need a bad pussy" line. Then people wrote shitty articles online calling GoT fans entitled for not wanting to see it. That's what this feels like.

 

[MHWilliams]

Same name makes it the franchise...got it.

Robocop and Total Recall were also called by the same name and I don't give a shit about the remakes over the originals so...

What are you saying, man?

He's saying your lack of caring doesn't change the fact that they are Robocop and Total Recall movies.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I'm saying that this is Ghostbusters.

Get used to it. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. Your feelings are irrelevant to what the product is.

Cool and just like with the remakes I just cited, if the movie is trash, no one will care.

Get over it.

He's saying your lack of caring doesn't change the fact that they are Robocop and Total Recall movies.

I wasn't the only one that felt the remakes were inferior...

 

[Nekofrog]

You're still talking about how you feel in regards to those things not being what they were presented as.

They are. There's literally 0 room for debate. Feelings are not facts.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

You're still talking about how you feel in regards to those things not being what they were presented as.

They are. There's literally 0 room for debate. Feelings are not facts.

What is the point (from the studios' perspective) of re-introducing a franchise? To build another franchise with the same name, correct?

It ABSOLUTELY matters what people think because that decides if there will be a Robocop remake 2 or a Total Recall remake 2...or a <gasp> Ghostbusters remake 2.

 

[Coffee Dog]

You're still talking about how you feel in regards to those things not being what they were presented as.

They are. There's literally 0 room for debate. Feelings are not facts.

Has anyone contested that the movie is not called Ghostbusters?

It's an entirely different movie with the same name, like the Totall Recall reboot or the Robocop reboot. Ergo, fans of one are free to not like the other. We're all on the same page with this.

 

[peaceiscloser]

That's not a gimmick. Sony wanted a Ghostbusters film. They shopped it around. Paul Fieg said yes. Paul Fieg likes working with women, so Paul Fieg cast all women. Done.

That is literally his creative desire at work, but through your personal lens, it's somehow a podium and a cheap hook. You should probably think about that a bit more.

I've never seen a Paul Fieg movie (they really never seemed all that appealing to me) so if this is what's made him popular before then I figure this is the same direction he would have gone here.

Not saying you are, but the idea that a female reboot is somehow a political stance is sexist. It's saying women can't be Ghostbusters without an agenda, which is horseshit.

I never looked at it from this dimension, which is good to think about. With issues like this I figure I'm liable to be wrong, so I think this is what's important about open dialog for understanding.

I suppose the way I feel about the new Ghostbusters is that an all-women hero team IS something important to have, and something that Hollywood (and the general public) needs to be comfortable producing. I believe that women can be Ghostbusters, but so far the trailers have led me to feel that this just wasn't the way to execute it. I'm probably just putting too much weight in this movie though, and I'm overthinking what ultimately will probably just be another popcorn comedy flick.

On a side note, I like reading peoples' opinions here though, I learn a lot from everyone. I sometimes am afraid to post my understanding of things, mostly because I'm afraid if I was banned for saying something that I just don't understand fully rather than something I really believe. Maybe that's something for it's own topic one day.

 

[Nekofrog]

Has anyone contested that the movie is not called Ghostbusters?

It's an entirely different movie with the same name, like the Totall Recall reboot or the Robocop reboot. Ergo, fans of one are free to not like the other. We're all on the same page with this.

No, they've contested that it isn't actually Ghostbusters despite being called Ghostbusters. An entirely different issue (and yet another problem with obsessive fanbases).

(stealth edit because of my dyslexia)

 

[Coffee Dog]

Yes. In this very thread.

Unless you're being purposefully obtuse (which you definitely are), I'm sure you can understand that when someone says that when the newest in a line of products bears little/no similarity with previous products in that line and therefore they are uncomfortable labelling those things as part of a set, they are not literally saying that those things are not exactly what they are.

 

[Nekofrog]

Unless you're being purposefully obtuse (which you definitely are), I'm sure you can understand that when someone says that when the newest in a line of products bears little/no similarity with previous products in that line and therefore they are uncomfortable labelling those things as part of a set, they are not literally saying that those things are not exactly what they are.

You quoted a reply I made due to my dyslexic misread of your post, which I edited and clarified as to why I edited it. If you'd like to discuss that, have another go at my corrected post.

 

[MHWilliams]

Unless you're being purposefully obtuse (which you definitely are), I'm sure you can understand that when someone says that when the newest in a line of products bears little/no similarity with previous products in that line and therefore they are uncomfortable labelling those things as part of a set, they are not literally saying that those things are not exactly what they are.

Ah, well this product bears enough similarity that I would reasonably call it a part of the set. Past that we're at pure opinion and preference I guess. This is remake that, given no name, I would reasonably guess it was "Ghostbusters". As an equal example, Arrow isn't the comics Green Arrow, but bereft the title, I could still reasonably guess it was an adaptation.

 

[JeremyEtcetera]

The only two older IPs I can think of that had sequels which ended up being good and were received well are Mad Max and Star Wars: TFA.

There have been a ton of stinkers recently of older IPs, including Robocop and Total Recall. This makes people skeptical of any new release with the title of an old Franchise. It also makes them upset enough to tell Hollywood to stop it, and come up with new ideas instead.

If you could take a second to look past the casting and title of new Ghostbusters and focus solely on the joke delivery and ghost CGI, from a general movie standpoint it looks like something of a cash in, like that one Eddie Murphy Haunted Mansion movie or a budget Scooby Doo/Goosebumps. Most of the jokes are not hitting well enough and they feel really safe and bottom line. Now, adding the actors back into the equation, you know that they have done better jobs and better comedy than this with past films, so why would anyone logically place the blame of the movie looking bad, onto them?

 

[Coffee Dog]

No, they've contested that it isn't actually Ghostbusters despite being called Ghostbusters. An entirely different issue (and yet another problem with obsessive fanbases).

(stealth edit because of my dyslexia)

I mean, at this point in the conversation it comes down to personal opinion of how much of something can be removed before it becomes something else. I keep bringing up Robocop 2013 because outside of the general concept (dude gets btfo and becomes a robocop) they are very, very different movies from both a script and direction standpoint. I've always thought that if you replace 95% of something it becomes something different and they are, in my opinion, two unique works with the same name.

I don't think there's any debate that this isn't going to feel or look at all like the Murray/Ramis/Aykroyd films after the amount of media we've seen so far, so it's not surprising that some don't want to lump them together. For the films sake, I think this is a good thing.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I'm surprised that James is getting this much exposure for his rant. I don't agree with him at all, but being a Star Trek fan I can understand how he feels (preferring Star Trek to just not be back rather than what we got).

 

[Nekofrog]

I mean, at this point in the conversation it comes down to personal opinion of how much of something can be removed before it becomes something else. I keep bringing up Robocop 2013 because outside of the general concept (dude gets btfo and becomes a robocop) they are very, very different movies from both a script and direction standpoint. I've always thought that if you replace 95% of something it becomes something different and they are, in my opinion, two unique works with the same name.

I don't think there's any debate that this isn't going to feel or look at all like the Murray/Ramis/Aykroyd films after the amount of media we've seen so far, so it's not surprising that some don't want to lump them together. For the films sake, I think this is a good thing.

It's an understandable point of view, and I get why people feel like that. I'm sure I've felt the same way in the past about things that I liked that were updated in a way that wasn't to my taste, but my feelings on the subject were just as irrelevant as others are in regards to this.

It's produced by the same studio, has the stamp of approval by major players of the original, has the settings and elements of what made the first movie what it was in its presentation. Even if I wind up hating the movie, I'll never say "that wasn't Ghostbusters", I'd say "that was a bad Ghostbusters movie".

 

[Tobor]

a proper Ghostbusters III where the remaining cast members return and hand things off to a new generation

This is what I wanted. Why am I wrong for wanting this? Why am I not supposed to be talking about how I wanted this?

It's not fandom run amok. It's the ability to share opinions with others on a grand scale.

 

[MHWilliams]

This is what I wanted. Why am I wrong for wanting this? Why am I not supposed to be talking about how I wanted this?

It's not fandom run amok. It's the ability to share opinions with others on a grand scale.

You can want it. It has little bearing of the film being made though.

I wanted a big budget G1 Transformers. That's not happening. I understand and have made peace with it. My bearing as a Transformers fan - which is a nebulous gatekeeping concept - has nothing to do with anything other than random online discussions or likewise with my peers.

Rolfe jumped into situation with a ton of vitriol being flung. It's a shame to see him get caught in it.

 

[jstripes]

This is what I wanted. Why am I wrong for wanting this? Why am I not supposed to be talking about how I wanted this?

It's not fandom run amok. It's the ability to share opinions with others on a grand scale.

The problem is you're sharing the same podium as the "anti-feminazi" crowd, and your voices are all mixing together.

You can want it. It has little bearing of the film being made though.

I wanted a big budget G1 Transformers. That's not happening. I understand and have made peace with it. My bearing as a Transformers fan - which is a nebulous gatekeeping concept - has nothing to do with anything other than random online discussions or likewise with my peers.

Rolfe jumped into situation with a ton of vitriol being flung. It's a shame to see him get caught in it.

I'm the same. I loved Transformers when I was a kid, and thought the "new" designs looked like garbage. I saw the movie, and it was garbage. But honestly, whatever. I'm in my 30s. The movie isn't for me anyway, and it didn't retroactively take away my childhood.

 

[Unspeakable Evil]

I felt like the lesbian shipping requests for Avatar Korra were less focused on progressiveness and more focused on the Yuri fappers.

Honestly everytime I see request for yaoi/yuri ship I wonder this. Is the want for more inclusive and diverse material or shippers just wanting to ship. Because shippers are crazy and you shouldn't indulge them.

 

[brandonh83]

This is what I wanted. Why am I wrong for wanting this? Why am I not supposed to be talking about how I wanted this?

I think it's fine to want that. If that happened, it's not like I'd complain about it.

My stance is that it'd be wholly unnecessary, would not improve the writing, performances or direction, and it would raise other critiques-- such as, "well they had to bring the old cast back to make this feel legitimate so it's not really since they had to rely on them" and that's exactly what a lot of people would say. In fact, that happens almost every time they actually do something like that, and for me, sometimes, things are better off just simply chiseling out their own thing.

Hell, when it was announced that Hamill, Ford and Fisher would be in Star Wars VII, there were immediate outcries of it lacking originality, how the new cast would have to rely on the old cast and how there's that reliance rather than crafting something completely new, how it would be too nostalgia-driven etc. That happened before and even after the movie came out. The difference with Star Wars is that it's another episode, not a wholly disconnected story, and the original actors were still alive and willing to return.

And it would happen elsewhere. If they brought back the two guys that would do it (Hudson and Aykroyd; Bill would not), do you think it'd really help anything aside from a simple connection? Would it really need something like that to establish itself and be anything of quality? I don't personally believe so. That ship sailed and got lost in the Bermuda long ago.

 

[John Kowalski]

The only opinion I have of this is that it's very disheartening to see people almost eager to be disappointed. I don't know what exactly it is that's happening or what they're searching for, but I feel like in the process of doing it they are consistently preemptively determining what they want to experience and what they want to give them that experience. Nostalgia, safety, horror, intellectual dissertations about modern anxieties. Whatever it is. When I go to see a movie at the theater, which I do a lot these days, I always go in wanting to leave with something new. Not something I was looking for, but something someone else looked for and wanted to show to others. But with these movies and fandoms... it doesn't feel like they recognize that kind of human to human interaction through film. Just products to consume.

It's kind of like the videogame obsession with flow. Unchallenging, quantitative experiences that are emotionally safe and undisturbed.

 

[jstripes]

My stance is that it'd be wholly unnecessary, would not improve the writing, performances or direction, and it would raise other critiques-- such as, "well they had to bring the old cast back to make this feel legitimate so it's not really since they had to rely on them" and that's exactly what a lot of people would say. In fact, that happens almost every time they actually do something like that, and for me, sometimes, things are better off just simply chiseling out their own thing.

"Passing the torch" can be so hokey, too.

But I guess some people need that mechanical transition to validate it in their minds.