First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Fandom is Broken
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 6/3/16 , edited 6/3/16
A good story is when they set out what they want, but the community can allways help or add to something..
Don't be afraid but also don't go out of your way to take too much into such ideas and try focusing on what you want not them.

So the whole "female power" and all that, its annoying to bring it into something that was wanted so much but just taking a huge...on it and ofc it will piss people off.
But that does not mean everyone is quite pissed out because of just that, they would atleast be a bit intreseted if it was any good...
For this it hasn't proved much.

And to really "try" with another trailer to just "fit the crowd or how they wanted us to have/make it" but still falls flat on its face something most be really bad then and forced and so on.

What annoys me though is the whole "its so great, you gotta be exited"... and with all the ads/news etc about it and the money involved and ART that could be used for better means and the money.
Then going around saying its better to be good or you are the fault in some sense.

People could overlooks somethings, and enjoy it to a degree but not finding it "good" but rather decent like 3-4/10

Nothing 10/10 if they couldn't get much with any of the trailers (even though liked the chaos room and some of those effects else nothing much)


14745 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/3/16 , edited 6/3/16

sundin13 wrote:

While there are some pieces of truth in that article, do we honestly need paragraph upon paragraph to say "fanatics will be fanatic"?

However, I think what is interesting is that there is also a lot of derision of fans and hate of consumers coming out of the woodwork (however it often gets more of a mainstream platform), acting like demanding higher quality works than the garbage that was the Ghostbuster's trailer is some kind of sin. This contempt for the consumer offers criticism I think was seen most strongly in the wake of that Ghostbusters trailer. The assertions that everyone was sexist for hating the trailer, or the idea earlier in this thread that if the actresses were attractive this wouldn't have been an issue, assuming intent and brushing off criticisms when they were legitimate. Same thing with the ME3 ending controversy. Legitimate criticisms were brought up, sometimes overzealously, and people and news outlets alike decide to chastise the upset fan instead of the company who released a disappointing product...


Or for the TL:DR version:
You can show a lengthy debate reasonably deconstructing all the abuses George Lucas made to the Prequel Trilogy--that he felt privileged to indulge himself upon, with no other artistic collaborator, like a co-screenwriter, or higher power, like a studio exec, to take the audience's interest into account and tell him No--vs. his "They're MY movies, not yours!" defense,
OR
you can show a chubby overaged convention fanboy in a "Han Shot First" shirt.

Both espouse the same viewpoint, but which has more credibility, and which is an easier, more cliche'd and universally-recognizable straw-man for pro-Lucas/artiste-privilege fans to attack?
9762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/16
I can essentially sum up my opinion of the new Ghostbusters film with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuNxz9xbSzY&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc&index=48

Bottom line; a crappy film is crappy, no matter what shade of PC curtains you try and decorate it with.
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 6/3/16
I don't really care to watch the movie anyway (though I do like Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wigg) and yeah, I'd personally would rather see them in a movie with an original plot instead of cashing in on an 80s movie that most young people will probably forever know as 'THAT STUPID MOVIE WITH ALL OF THOSE WOMEN IN IT' instead of checking out the original.

My thing is..and it's not just here, it's all over...you'd think they'd remade Harry Potter with Donald Trump as Harry and Hillary Clinton as Voldemort with the hate this movie gets.

No one's probably even going to remember this movie by year's end anyway
28204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/3/16
Putting aside the roiling misogyny behind some of the backlash; I don't get the bashing on it as automatically a terrible film that will ruin everything.

Like, did everyone forget Ghostbusters 2? Or EXTREME Ghostbusters? This hardly looks like it'll be the worst thing that's been done to the franchise. I mean at least it has some talent behind it. So I'll wait and see till it actually comes out. I loved me some Ghostbusters as a kid but I'm not about to start screaming like a pod person because a vagina got near it.

Usually when Hollywood digs back for a reboot they hand it off to some random jackass or unfortunate indie director and a couple on the cheap screenwriters. Then wonder where it all went wrong.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/16

sundin13 wrote:

While there are some pieces of truth in that article, do we honestly need paragraph upon paragraph to say "fanatics will be fanatic"?

However, I think what is interesting is that there is also a lot of derision of fans and hate of consumers coming out of the woodwork (however it often gets more of a mainstream platform), acting like demanding higher quality works than the garbage that was the Ghostbuster's trailer is some kind of sin. This contempt for the consumer offers criticism I think was seen most strongly in the wake of that Ghostbusters trailer. The assertions that everyone was sexist for hating the trailer, or the idea earlier in this thread that if the actresses were attractive this wouldn't have been an issue, assuming intent and brushing off criticisms when they were legitimate. Same thing with the ME3 ending controversy. Legitimate criticisms were brought up, sometimes overzealously, and people and news outlets alike decide to chastise the upset fan instead of the company who released a disappointing product...

I think one side is demanding something that they believe would be better in a way that is overzealous, while the other side is embracing mediocrity with much the same fervor. Which is really more harmful?


I have no problem with people pointing out what's wrong with a work and neither does the author the problem is the overzealous demand by people to change it such as in the retake mass effect movement. Personally speaking MrBtongue critique of the ending is one of the best videos on YouTube.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/16
Also for this thread in general the amount of people whining about the new ghostbusters film instead of the actual subject at hand just proves the point.
5019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/16

runec wrote:

Putting aside the roiling misogyny behind some of the backlash; I don't get the bashing on it as automatically a terrible film that will ruin everything.

Like, did everyone forget Ghostbusters 2? Or EXTREME Ghostbusters? This hardly looks like it'll be the worst thing that's been done to the franchise. I mean at least it has some talent behind it. So I'll wait and see till it actually comes out. I loved me some Ghostbusters as a kid but I'm not about to start screaming like a pod person because a vagina got near it.

Usually when Hollywood digs back for a reboot they hand it off to some random jackass or unfortunate indie director and a couple on the cheap screenwriters. Then wonder where it all went wrong.



LOL
14745 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/4/16 , edited 6/4/16

runec wrote:

Putting aside the roiling misogyny behind some of the backlash; I don't get the bashing on it as automatically a terrible film that will ruin everything.
Like, did everyone forget Ghostbusters 2? Or EXTREME Ghostbusters? This hardly looks like it'll be the worst thing that's been done to the franchise. I mean at least it has some talent behind it. So I'll wait and see till it actually comes out. I loved me some Ghostbusters as a kid but I'm not about to start screaming like a pod person because a vagina got near it. .


Ghostbusters 2 wasn't funny, but it was their OWN unfunny--It was Dan Aykroyd flogging his one last post-SNL gravy-train for all it was worth (the scene where Aykroyd and Hudson bore a kids' birthday party will forever symbolize Dan's later career), and it was product of the late "Willow" 80's where every single movie had to have a cute freakin' ticking-biological-clock baby after Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg and Diane Keaton.
You can blame the studios, maybe, but no one ever made sweeping social pronouncements about a sequel franchise getting too full of itself and dropping the ball.

Extreme Ghostbusters actually looks like Sony's animation tried to salvage the "New Team" script that Aykroyd originally wanted to do--Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson didn't want to do a third movie, so the new movie script was tailored for Aykroyd and Harold Ramis to train new recruits, including Chris Farley, Chris Rock, and a funny-crabby female member, possibly even a job promotion for Annie Potts' Janine.
After that project self-destructed and fell into limbo, Sony may have figured it was easier to recycle the concept for animation, both to stretch out Real Ghostbusters' afternoon-syndication money, and because, like Spiderman, it's just "easier" to do a danged animated.

But here's the point: THOSE projects had at least WATCHED the movies in their lives.
It's hard not to go off onto "Evil sexist women-hating misogyny" about why guys being funny portraying themselves as science nerds isn't the same as female comics portraying themselves as oddball nerds, since males tend to be more forgiving and sympathetic about their own high-school pasts of socially striking out--
And unless a female comic is classically clown-trained to make absolute fools of themselves like Lucille Ball, Carol Burnett or Carole Lombard, most contemporary female comics tend to be a little too socially aggressive or personally vindictive in portraying a "gamma-nerd" or a "room-annoying upstart", and seem to project that they're getting back at somebody by doing it. Like the commercials where bubbly Tina Fey happily annoys everyone around her with her credit card, there's a feeling of smug passive-hostility being rubbed in the audience's face, that kills the laughs on contact like Raid.


runec wrote:
Usually when Hollywood digs back for a reboot they hand it off to some random jackass or unfortunate indie director and a couple on the cheap screenwriters. Then wonder where it all went wrong.


A skilled comedy director--like Howard Hawks directing "How to Marry a Millionaire"--could maybe bring out just plain universal classic comedy in female comics for the whole audience--rather than just "our own" humor for an isolated demographic to nudge and crab at each other with--but Sony felt it was safer giving an established comedy franchise to the director who'd made money with every other big Melissa McCarthy hit, and McCarthy was happy about going into the project because her husband was directing.

GB2 was the guys' own fault, GB'16 is a STUDIOS' fault. And you know how we all hate studios. Sony in particular.
28204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/4/16

Ejanss wrote:
But here's the point: THOSE projects had at least WATCHED the movies in their lives.


Do you really think no one involved here ever watched Ghostbusters? I mean, Murray, Ackroyd, Hudson and Weaver wouldn't have agree to cameos in the new one if they all thought it was misguided shit. Murray especially. He's been passing on GB3 for years.



Ejanss wrote:
GB2 was the guys' own fault, GB'16 is a STUDIOS' fault. And you know how we all hate studios. Sony in particular.


Sony can make a good movie when they leave the cast and crew alone to do it. Hopefully there was enough star power in the production here to keep Sony fro micromanaging. I mean, at least they didn't take a major IP and hand it off to some indie director with 1 film under his belt. This time.
14745 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/4/16 , edited 6/4/16

runec wrote:
Do you really think no one involved here ever watched Ghostbusters? I mean, Murray, Ackroyd, Hudson and Weaver wouldn't have agree to cameos in the new one if they all thought it was misguided shit. Murray especially. He's been passing on GB3 for years.


Murray's been slowly getting back into comedy after all those "quirky indie" dramedy years with Wes Anderson and Sophia Coppola, and may have felt he owed the franchise a favor.
He certainly didn't want to get back into Aykroyd's third scripts after there was no story left to tell (at last sighting, the late Peter Venkman was going to be one of the cameo ghosts to bust), and it's easier to do a class-reunion cameo for nostalgia than to do one more sequel fresh off the pipeline.


Sony can make a good movie when they leave the cast and crew alone to do it. Hopefully there was enough star power in the production here to keep Sony fro micromanaging. I mean, at least they didn't take a major IP and hand it off to some indie director with 1 film under his belt. This time.


True, Feig had four theatrical movies under his belt (and one even without McCarthy), that's better than one.
9762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/4/16 , edited 6/4/16

megahobbit wrote:

Also for this thread in general the amount of people whining about the new ghostbusters film instead of the actual subject at hand just proves the point.


No, it doesn't. This is you deliberately misconstruing the very argument you highlight in your OP. Devin Faraci, although guilty of tossing about a few generalizations, is referring to overzealousness that bears death threats and extremely vocal online harassment, as well as people actively trying to force writers to change their work. In no way are mild conversations regarding opinions tossed under the bus as "overzealousness." Perhaps, though, do you believe that criticism and offhand opinions themselves are paramount to zealous behavior, and therefore bad? Rather, I'm inclined to believe that you're upset that people aren't talking about what you want, the way you want.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 6/4/16 , edited 6/4/16

megahobbit wrote:
Also for this thread in general the amount of people whining about the new ghostbusters film instead of the actual subject at hand just proves the point.
proves what?...
After a while thought it was about it
Since everyone was about that movie..

Then please give us a tl;dr
as the movie is like title a bit about fandom like the teal deer said:
"its used as a weapon" and/or defence but maybe not in the way you see it.
14745 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/4/16

aeb0717 wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

Also for this thread in general the amount of people whining about the new ghostbusters film instead of the actual subject at hand just proves the point.


No, it doesn't. This is you deliberately misconstruing the very argument you highlight in your OP. Devin Faraci, although guilty of tossing about a few generalizations, is referring to overzealousness that bears death threats and extremely vocal online harassment, as well as people actively trying to force writers to change their work. In no way are mild conversations regarding opinions tossed under the bus as "overzealousness." Perhaps, though, do you believe that criticism and offhand opinions themselves are paramount to zealous behavior, and therefore bad? Rather, I'm inclined to believe that you're upset that people aren't talking about what you want, the way you want.


He also jumps the point to guilt-by-association that anyone who disagrees with an artist's self-indulgent jump off the rails or over a shark is in fact "selfishly demanding he rewrite the movie to fit fans' specifications".

No. We're just asking that the artist not be a looney, given that most mass entertainment is based on the premise of appealing to the majority of the audience. It's a hard thing to disagree with the people you're potentially hitting up for money, and preemptively picking fights with them is downright suicidal
If you want to think that the haters pointing out that the "new" idea was a mistake are nothing but an "immature vocal minority", and don't represent the overall mass opinion of your genius, you have only your sporting blood, and however much money you invested in the show, to prove it.
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 6/4/16

megahobbit wrote:

Also for this thread in general the amount of people whining about the new ghostbusters film instead of the actual subject at hand just proves the point.


No one is whining about this goddamn movie. They're just saying how ridiculous people are acting.

Like the article was saying, people act like writers of anything, whether it's Marvel, Disney, anime, etc should write stories to specifications to placate idiot fans (see the whole 'Captain America/Elsa should have a same sex partner 'cause DIVERSITY' deal) who act like they own the characters instead of the writer.

As for the deal with the Ghostbusters remake....people are seriously acting like it's their duty to go see this movie and bitch about how feminism ruined it all. No one is putting a freaking gun to their heads to go see this stupid movie. Dont' want to watch it, go rent the original instead. Problem solved.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.