Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890029
featofstrength wrote:
Oh, the provincial life! How terrible!

I guess that screenwriter got what she really wanted with Belle through Alice in that horrible Tim Burton adaptation?
Oops...sorry about the side of colonialism! To distract you, here is the worst thing ever put in a motion picture:
Image
Yeah, exactly! When I got older and realized what "provincial" meant I thought, "Wait.....she's kind of a jerk..." Lol

Tolkien did that much better with Frodo and his dissatisfaction with the Shire. There were examples of how narrow minded the other Hobbits were. In B&B, the towns people are literally just going to work in the morning and being accosted by this random girl who's singing about reading...a book that changes from Jack and the Beanstalk to The Frog Prince somehow...except that Jack encountered a Giant, not an "Ogre..." :whatever:
featofstrength liked this
By pferreira1983
#4890286
Kingpin wrote:You don't need highly-detailed characters to make them pleasing, and entertaining for kids. That's your preference, and while it works in some cases, it doesn't work everywhere.
I just feel animation should be entertaining, there's no excuse for also not adding detail to characters you're drawing. It seems like the lazy thing to do today unfortunately.
Kingpin wrote:You don't actually know that Emma's involvement with the script is going to be a bad thing (true, I can't say I know it's a good thing either until I've been able to see the film),
Oh yes I do. She changed Belle from being a book fan to being an inventor because Watson being the paranoid feminist she is thought that Belle liking books was sexist so she had it changed. Who knows what other 'adjustments' she made.
Kingpin wrote:"feminist involvement" and "feminist tinkering" to a point that is bordering on obsessive. I've seen more invoking of feminism on this forum from people criticising it than from the actual feminists.
We've seen what feminism can do to movies we love, the fact that a lot of feminist ideology is quite frankly either racist or destructive is why some of us on here bring it up.
Kingpin wrote:it's actually rather neat getting to see actors have some involvement in putting together their characters' dialogue.
No trust me it really isn't. :roll:
featofstrength wrote:The first run wasn't feminist enough?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bea ... 512f846aae
Thank you.
Alphagaia wrote:I just liked that candle guy.
For shame, Cogsworth was terrific. :mrgreen:
JurorNo.2 wrote:She's a snob laughing at the poor plebs in her town for being too busy to read because they actually work for a living! Not everyone gets free books for being a hot chick, Belle! :roll:
I take it it's not your favourite Disney film? :shock:
Kingpin wrote:I've never really thought about feminism in Beauty and the Beast (the original) to be honest, but you know, so what if the live action version tries to improve on/expand some of the original's messages?
Here's my question: why fix what ain't broke just to prove you're a feminist? :wink:
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890293
pferreira1983 wrote:I take it it's not your favourite Disney film? :shock:
Correct, lol, I'm more partial to Show White, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, or Sword in the Stone. :)
By featofstrength
#4890295
pferreira1983 wrote:
Kingpin wrote:I've never really thought about feminism in Beauty and the Beast (the original) to be honest, but you know, so what if the live action version tries to improve on/expand some of the original's messages?
Here's my question: why fix what ain't broke just to prove you're a feminist? :wink:
But, she's going to teach other girls how to read and invent a washing machine so they have time to do so!
http://people.com/movies/emma-watson-be ... the-beast/
She also defeats Gaston by organizing a women's march in the town square. His "grab em by the pussy" days are over!
Image The emphasis on messages must be why they cast such unexpressive actors... any more, and they would be too distracting from what's important in bringing an award-winning, musical animated feature "to life."
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4890298
pferreira1983 wrote:I just feel animation should be entertaining
And as I said before, you don't need highly-detailed character designs for it to be entertaining, having highly-detailed animation is not a guarantee it'll be an entertaining show.
pferreira1983 wrote:there's no excuse for also not adding detail to characters you're drawing. It seems like the lazy thing to do today unfortunately.
I can think of a few:

1) Cartoons for children are often designed with a simplified style to make them more appealing, more eye-catching to young viewers. They may even have designed them to look more simplified in the hope that children may try to draw their favourite characters.

This also has an added bonus, that it can make it easier to produce toys of the characters, less tooling on the figures will result in them being cheaper to mass-produce.

2) The animators will have their own particular preference for the style of their work (as has been touched on in previous posts), in previous decades, animators may've been forced to work to a particular style, but nowadays there's a lot more flexibility and freedom. You may feel this is an expansion of "laziness" (although I'll suggest that argument is just as... uninformed as remarks I've seen about CGI animation and elements being "easy" to produce over older, traditional animated elements, it may seem easier and laziness only because the person making those remarks only has a passing knowledge, or no real knowledge of how that industry works), but if anything it's an expansion of originality and creativity. Sure, not all animation styles are our cup of tea, but it's great that animators can work in a style they're comfortable with rather than a "standard design" that they don't feel comfortable with.

3) Animation that is still predominately hand-drawn has to have a degree of simplification in order for it to be achieved in a timely manner and for it to not cause any long-term health issues with the people drawing it. A television series is going to have different staffing levels to an animated motion picture, that's why you rarely see television series with the quality of classic Disney (even Disney's official television spinoffs of some of their movies... Aladdin, Lilo & Stitch, Hercules look poorer in quality than the films they were based on, the shows likely had smaller budgets and a combination of smaller/cheaper animation teams).

It's likely why the equipment in The Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters were reduced to primary blocky shapes, with few wires or hoses hanging off of them: easier to draw, draw and redraw, while maintaining the overall characteristics we're familiar with.
pferreira1983 wrote:Oh yes I do. She changed Belle from being a book fan to being an inventor...
She'll still be a book reader, even if she's got an interest in inventions (I have seen a clip from the new film's Library scene, but yet to see the inventor change). Even so, it doesn't seem an unnatural change to perhaps give her some interested interest from her inventor father.
pferreira1983 wrote:because Watson being the paranoid feminist she is thought that Belle liking books was sexist so she had it changed.
There's only one thing I'm seeing here in this topic that's acting paranoid, and it isn't Emma Watson.
pferreira1983 wrote:We've seen what feminism can do to movies we love
Beyond Ghostbusters 2016 and Beauty and the Beast 2017, please do enlighten me. I would also be interested to know your feelings on say, religious pressure on motion pictures.
pferreira1983 wrote:the fact that a lot of feminist ideology is quite frankly either racist or destructive is why some of us on here bring it up.
"Racist", and a catch-all "destructive", convenient argument talking points that ultimately don't really reveal anything.
pferreira1983 wrote:No trust me it really isn't. :roll:
It is, you might've been burned by Emma Watson and your own feelings on feminism, but there are plenty of good examples of actors getting to flesh out their characters: William Hartnell as the first Doctor (and presumably most actors who've played the role since then as well), Viggo Mortensen (who decided to carry a whet stone in his gear as Aragorn even though it never appeared on-screen), Indiana Jones shooting the sword guy in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jones's "I don't care!" in The Fugitive, Paxton's "Game over man!" in Aliens (I acknowledge these are more improve than script-work - my Google Fu was proving tricky to find script examples), some of the best stuff we've seen in Hollywood that wasn't originally planned came from the actors' improvements or influence, even Murray, for all his frustrating personality quirks, helped flesh out Venkman beyond the script page. Some are divas when they do it sure, but not all of them, and not every change motivated by a feeling of feminism is immediately a bad one.
pferreira1983 wrote:Here's my question: why fix what ain't broke just to prove you're a feminist? :wink:
She may've genuinely felt the character need to be fleshed out a bit more, the current version of Disney may have also agreed with her, seeing as they went with the decision rather than sticking with how the script was originally written.
By pferreira1983
#4890325
JurorNo.2 wrote:Correct, lol, I'm more partial to Show White, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, or Sword in the Stone. :)
Ok, it's my favourite Disney animated film.
featofstrength wrote:But, she's going to teach other girls how to read and invent a washing machine so they have time to do so!
I just find it so odd that Belle in the original film was a strong female character that Watson would look for issues to make changes to. It just sounds crazy.
Kingpin wrote: having highly-detailed animation is not a guarantee it'll be an entertaining show.
Exactly but you're half way there.
Kingpin wrote:This also has an added bonus, that it can make it easier to produce toys of the characters, less tooling on the figures will result in them being cheaper to mass-produce.
That sounds like you're grabbing at straws. It takes the exact same effort to make any type of action figure apart from Chinese knock offs.
Kingpin wrote:The animators will have their own particular preference for the style of their work (as has been touched on in previous posts), in previous decades, animators may've been forced to work to a particular style, but nowadays there's a lot more flexibility and freedom. You may feel this is an expansion of "laziness" (although I'll suggest that argument is just as... uninformed as remarks I've seen about CGI animation and elements being "easy" to produce over older, traditional animated elements, it may seem easier and laziness only because the person making those remarks only has a passing knowledge, or no real knowledge of how that industry works),
Okay first of all you're criticising me, saying I know nothing about CGI when it seems I can spot more bad CGI compared to you (not bad for someone with passing knowledge), secondly as stated above while it can be a style it's also done to save money and time. The difference between The Real Ghostbusters and Samurai Jack.
Kingpin wrote:(even Disney's official television spinoffs of some of their movies... Aladdin, Lilo & Stitch, Hercules look poorer in quality than the films they were based on, the shows likely had smaller budgets and a combination of smaller/cheaper animation teams).
To some extent I agree however these examples are television spin-offs of already animated features. Not a reliable comparison.
Kingpin wrote:It's likely why the equipment in The Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters were reduced to primary blocky shapes, with few wires or hoses hanging off of them: easier to draw, draw and redraw, while maintaining the overall characteristics we're familiar with.
I can live with 10% simplicity here and there compared to 100% of today's work.
Kingpin wrote:Even so, it doesn't seem an unnatural change to perhaps give her some interested interest from her inventor father.
You're trying to defend something that can't be defended, please don't try.
Kingpin wrote:There's only one thing I'm seeing here in this topic that's acting paranoid, and it isn't Emma Watson.
If you think she's right and I'm wrong I have to ask why did she have to make the change? :roll:
Kingpin wrote:Beyond Ghostbusters 2016 and Beauty and the Beast 2017, please do enlighten me. I would also be interested to know your feelings on say, religious pressure on motion pictures.
Weekly criticism of such topics as Gamora's screentime in a GOTG trailer. It's all there, you just have to find it man. :wink:
Kingpin wrote:"Racist", and a catch-all "destructive", convenient argument talking points that ultimately don't really reveal anything.
I'll just leave this here for you to ignore as usual:

Kingpin wrote:It is, you might've been burned by Emma Watson and your own feelings on feminism, but there are plenty of good examples of actors getting to flesh out their characters
Not so much being burned as a disease that's spreading throughout Hollywood but if you're happy with that feel free to see the latest Paul Feig comedy and grin at it's fantastic brilliance of vagine jokes. :roll:
Kingpin wrote:She may've genuinely felt the character need to be fleshed out a bit more, the current version of Disney may have also agreed with her, seeing as they went with the decision rather than sticking with how the script was originally written.
Or maybe she's been some months out of feminism and feels she has to prove something so she looks for issues where there are none? That's what feminists do in a lot of cases right? There was nothing wrong with Belle in the original and if you think there is you either never liked the original movie or you're an Emma Watson fan. I mean it feels like talking to a brick wall with some of you guys sometimes. :roll: There's only so many excuses you can come up with, it drives me nuts.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890329
Why is it bad people want to add something new to a character to set it apart from previous incantation and why is that action feminist just because the actrice is Feminist?
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4890357
pferreira1983 wrote:That sounds like you're grabbing at straws. It takes the exact same effort to make any type of action figure apart from Chinese knock offs.
Compare Mattel's Ghostbusters figures to Diamond's, and then compare both of those to Marvel's Mighty Heroes line, and then tell me they all take the same amount of effort as each other.
pferreira1983 wrote:Okay first of all you're criticising me, saying I know nothing about CGI when it seems I can spot more bad CGI compared to you
Being able to spot CGI doesn't make you an expert in the field, it doesn't mean you actually know what goes into making CGI elements in film and television, it just means you're observant. If you've studied 3D computer graphics/3D computer animation in higher education then that'd make yours an informed opinion, but I think from prior conversation we've established you didn't study it at university.
pferreira1983 wrote:I can live with 10% simplicity here and there compared to 100% of today's work.
Then may I suggest, stop watching today's offerings.
pferreira1983 wrote:You're trying to defend something that can't be defended, please don't try.
Meanwhile you're prejudiced.
pferreira1983 wrote:If you think she's right and I'm wrong I have to ask why did she have to make the change? :roll:
Because maybe Belle was a bit underdeveloped as a character? That Emma wanted to give the character a bit more substance?

I love the original Beauty and the Beast, but this isn't a change I have a problem with, or am going to get so animated over.
pferreira1983 wrote:Weekly criticism of such topics as Gamora's screentime in a GOTG trailer. It's all there, you just have to find it man. :wink:
Criticism of how much time she spends in the trailer is not the same thing as actually influencing the film. Fair enough, that criticism of the trailer seems petty.
pferreira1983 wrote:I'll just leave this here for you to ignore as usual
I guess that's 1-1 on both sides, as you didn't respond to my question about religious influence on films. :)
pferreira1983 wrote:Not so much being burned as a disease that's spreading throughout Hollywood
Well, I suppose it's good to know what you really think, pferreira1983.

This isn't meant to be any sort of threat, but I would strongly urge you to consider how you phrase things in future here, as remarks like that are likely to go down poorly with some of the members here.
pferreira1983 wrote:but if you're happy with that feel free to see the latest Paul Feig comedy and grin at it's fantastic brilliance of vagine jokes. :roll:
I'm not a huge fan of Paul Feig's prior work from what I've seen of it, I think I've said something to that effect from the beginning. I enjoyed the reboot, but it doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to see any of his new films, as I'm not keen on the general tone I've seen in them. Ghostbusters 2016 for me appears to have been the exception to the rule of his work and McCarthy's - something more palatable than the standard.
pferreira1983 wrote: I mean it feels like talking to a brick wall with some of you guys sometimes. :roll: There's only so many excuses you can come up with, it drives me nuts.
The feeling's mutual, and there's only so much complaining against feminism a person can make before they turn themselves into a stereotype.
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4890378
featofstrength wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote: Here's my question: why fix what ain't broke just to prove you're a feminist? :wink:
But, she's going to teach other girls how to read and invent a washing machine so they have time to do so!
http://people.com/movies/emma-watson-be ... the-beast/
She also defeats Gaston by organizing a women's march in the town square. His "grab em by the pussy" days are over!
Image The emphasis on messages must be why they cast such unexpressive actors... any more, and they would be too distracting from what's important in bringing an award-winning, musical animated feature "to life."
Oh my god is that real? LOL oh lawd....
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4890379
Alphagaia wrote:Why is it bad people want to add something new to a character to set it apart from previous incantation and why is that action feminist just because the actrice is Feminist?
If it's forced it's pretty damn cringey, bro. I have no issues with strong women characters, but changing the original material and it's an "in-your-face" message it's cringey.
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890381
Here we go again, lol. Everything with women is now jinxed as a horrible agenda. What a world...
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4890395
SpaceBallz wrote:If it's forced it's pretty damn cringey, bro.
If it's forced, hopefully it'll be an organic change (I'll be able to let you guys know, as I was going to see it as soon as the firs trailer hit). Not every change is for the worst, even ones brought about by feminists. Not everything is replacing the guns in E.T. with walkie talkies.
SpaceBallz wrote:but changing the original material and it's an "in-your-face" message it's cringey.
I assume you're aware of how much Disney already changed the various tales from their original source material? Little Mermaid and Frozen are two of the more prominent examples.
SpaceBallz liked this
By featofstrength
#4890396
SpaceBallz wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:Why is it bad people want to add something new to a character to set it apart from previous incantation and why is that action feminist just because the actrice is Feminist?
If it's forced it's pretty damn cringey, bro. I have no issues with strong women characters, but changing the original material and it's an "in-your-face" message it's cringey.
Cringey and in your face? Always goes over well.
Image
By scythemantis
#4890453
Nothing in the entire 2016 movie feels "in your face" or "forced" about gender. Gender is virtually never even mentioned. How does anyone find the casting "cringey" unless they really do just don't like the idea of an all-female team?

Yeah, I know this argument has been hammered into the ground since day one.....but it still stands and has yet to be shot down. There's simply no reason to think any of it was shoehorned/forced unless you personally want it to be.

Of course, that's the case with the vast majority of things accused of such.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890456
From what I gather most people who are calling it forced or in your face already have a negative outlook on feminism and actively look for it, wanting to see it instead of brushing a joke of and forgetting both sexes are the butt of jokes, as the movie has no bias either way.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4890459
scythemantis wrote:There's simply no reason to think any of it was shoehorned/forced unless you personally want it to be.
Some of the rationale that's been argued here in the past has been quite similar to those with anti-gay views who claim that same-sex relationships/LGBT couples/"the gay agenda" have been "shoved in their faces" (little appreciating how the plethora of loved-up heterosexual couple imagery every valentines day or for most romantic comedies actually does tend to really be in a given person's face), with such an overreacting response being triggered by the smallest or even non-existent instances.
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890463
Also, let's not forget there are some individuals that still want to troll this site because they are so,so, so angry they got banned and try to stir things up because of personal reasons.
JurorNo.2, Kingpin liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890464
scythemantis wrote:Nothing in the entire 2016 movie feels "in your face" or "forced" about gender. Gender is virtually never even mentioned.
Some detractors just don't want to admit they overreacted to nothing. Others seem to have developed a Pavlovian type complex where the mere sight of women triggers cries of "Agenda!!!"
How does anyone find the casting "cringey" unless they really do just don't like the idea of an all-female team?
"Cringey" has become Internet speak for "look how cool I am." It's the girls in High School who giggle, "OMG, I can't believe she just SAID that!"
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890465
Alphagaia wrote:Also, let's not forget there are some individuals that still want to troll this site because they are so,so, so angry they got banned and try to stir things up because of personal reasons.
There is someone on Reddit who insists he wasn't banned (I'm skeptical) but is currently here in "spy" mode, keeping a low profile because he just knows bashing the reboot will get him banned. Never mind obviously there's been a lot of reboot haters here who are more than free to state their opinions without being banned.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4890479
JurorNo.2 wrote:There is someone on Reddit who insists he wasn't banned (I'm skeptical) but is currently here in "spy" mode, keeping a low profile because he just knows bashing the reboot will get him banned.
Did you PM me about that? I have talked via PMs to some members about banned members coming back here. If we haven't talked previously about it, could you please send me details (including said Redditer's screen name) via PM.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890480
Kingpin wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:There is someone on Reddit who insists he wasn't banned (I'm skeptical) but is currently here in "spy" mode, keeping a low profile because he just knows bashing the reboot will get him banned.
Did you PM me about that? I have talked via PMs to some members about banned members coming back here. If we haven't talked previously about it, could you please send me details (including said Redditer's screen name) via PM.
Sure, no problem.
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4890485
scythemantis wrote:Nothing in the entire 2016 movie feels "in your face" or "forced" about gender. Gender is virtually never even mentioned.






....oops, wrong Feig movie.
scythemantis wrote: How does anyone find the casting "cringey" unless they really do just don't like the idea of an all-female team?
...Paul? Is that you?

Last edited by SpaceBallz on February 22nd, 2017, 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890487
I'll repeat some of the same arguments as well since Spaceballz is into this:

-It's if both movies just made a joke instead of some statement!

-Though I love how Spaceballz still uses one bit of a deleted scene, where Benny is trying different riffs, as proof of something.

-I could show a few clips of the GB bumbling about with doors and getting slimed to make it seem women are idiots in the movie as well.

-If one the movies uses genatalia for a joke, like crossing the streams, grab your stick and make it hard or implied pussy fart, that does not mean the movie is trying to one up the other sex.

-Ah well, keep trying with the same arguments. It's really getting somewhere.

And lastly:

-Ah well, the haters need to give this movie a man hating agenda ofcourse.
Last edited by Alphagaia on February 22nd, 2017, 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890488
Alphagaia wrote:Benny is trying different rigs
Btw, I really liked Benny, talk about adorable, lol.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890489
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:Benny is trying different rigs
Btw, I really liked Benny, talk about adorable, lol.
He and his weak knees and crush on Erin was great. I meant to say riffs though.

Also, what does one of the endscenes of the Heat have to do with this?

Bullock plays an irritating controll freak who only thinks for herself and has the same attitude as the people who laugh in that room (there are also women in the crowd), but this scene shows McCarthy, who is also a known troublemaker, has opened her eyes as Bullock defends her for the first time.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890490
Alphagaia wrote:He and his weak knees and crush on Erin was great. I meant to say riffs though.
He had great reactions too; I honestly wouldn't have minded if the entire movie was the ladies riffing with Benny, lol.
Alphagaia wrote:Also, what does one of the endscenes of the Heat have to do with this?

Bullock plays an irritating controll freak who only thinks for herself and has the same attitude as the people who laugh in that room (there are also women in the crowd), but this scene shows McCarthy, who is also a known troublemaker, has opened her eyes as Bullock defends her for the first time.
Yeah I haven't seen the movie but that clip didn't seem to be about women. It looks like two actors doing a typical buddy cop comedy. Except they're female actors instead of male. Big whoop.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890502
Sav C wrote:Benny was Aziz Azari, right? He had a really great SNL monologue earlier this season when he hosted.
Benny is Karan Soni, he was in Deadpool as well. But yeah, Aziz Azari did great on SNL, loved the law firm sketch, lol.
Sav C liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Make it that pack, sell it for $599. (While I […]

Yeah, we've been building this thing for ten[…]

Someone on FB found it. NARDA ELECTROMAGNETIC RADI[…]

It appears that some time today someone who […]