User avatar
By seaniccus
#4857335
That international trailer was both better and worse?

I think it's super interesting how it was cut almost as a response to the negative reaction to the first trailer. I very much feel like Patty's line at the concert scene was put in this trailer not just as a trailer joke, but as a response to negative reaction from the producers.

The logo joke was so intentionally bad it's obviously a jab at the controversy too -- but I feel like they could have done a better job with the artwork in that scene to make it less obvious.

My long-thoughts are here, in the second half of this video (first half is about the Civil War trailer)


And yes, I know the title card has a typo. I'm an idiot.
User avatar
By GuyX
#4857660
Still working from 3G flip phone. Got the bad news this afternoon that I'm going to have to buy a new computer. Just an update so you don't think I've forgotten about you. Apologies for the delay.
#4857901
With the comments I've seen on other sites I'm not sure I can recall the last time I've seen a movie trailer piss people off quite this much.

I'm cautiously optimistic and the trailer got me laughing a few times so I plan to see it, even if not in theaters.

Plus as I hear it Reitman plants to do more with the original series, I wouldn't be surprised if the two were combined somehow.
#4857917
kurisu7885 wrote:With the comments I've seen on other sites I'm not sure I can recall the last time I've seen a movie trailer piss people off quite this much.

I'm cautiously optimistic and the trailer got me laughing a few times so I plan to see it, even if not in theaters.

Plus as I hear it Reitman plants to do more with the original series, I wouldn't be surprised if the two were combined somehow.
You should look at some the threads when the game was still being made. People found things to be hugely annoyed about left and right. It got to a point the mods here warned people not to create pointless threads complaining about every single thing.

Game turned out alright though.
#4857944
In his own words, straight from the horse's mouth asshole:

“You’re so in the moment that nothing seems like it has any kind of historical value while you’re doing it, because we’re just making this thing. … But when he walked onto the Ghostbusters set I was like, 'This is a big deal.’ It was really nerve-wracking, and special.”

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/paul-feig- ... 29446.html
At no point during the making of this movie did he actually respect the property or its cinematic significance. Big surprise there! But when Bill Murray stepped onto the set, Paul Feig did get "excited."
Last edited by Egon's Pompadour on March 17th, 2016, 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4857947
I changed that last bit about Paul's response to Murray being on set because what was originally written was utterly crass, and probably not appropriate within the forum's rules.
Egon's Pompadour wrote:At no point during the making of this movie did he actually respect the property or its cinematic significance. Big surprise there! But when Bill Murray stepped onto the set, Paul Feig did get excited.
I really don't think that's what he meant at all. I believe his point was that while making the 2016 film, he didn't have a sense of how it'd specifically shape the future legacy of Ghostbusters, and how it'll be weighed up historically after the fact - sorta like how Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster wouldn't have known the cultural impact and historical legacy they'd be creating with the debut of Superman.

He wasn't saying that the past movies, and iterations of the Ghostbusters franchise/property didn't have historical value, which appears to be how you've interpreted it.
#4857949
Kingpin wrote:I changed that last bit about Paul's response to Murray being on set because what was originally written was utterly crass, and probably not appropriate within the forum's rules.
Egon's Pompadour wrote:At no point during the making of this movie did he actually respect the property or its cinematic significance. Big surprise there! But when Bill Murray stepped onto the set, Paul Feig did get excited.
I really don't think that's what he meant at all. I believe his point was that while making the 2016 film, he didn't have a sense of how it'd specifically shape the future legacy of Ghostbusters, and how it'll be weighed up historically after the fact - sorta like how Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster wouldn't have known the cultural impact and historical legacy they'd be creating with the debut of Superman.

He wasn't saying that the past movies, and iterations of the Ghostbusters franchise/property didn't have historical value, which appears to be how you've interpreted it.
Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman. Of course they didn't know the cultural impact it would have at the time. Paul Feig was tasked with helming a beloved franchise with an established legacy. It appears from the trailer (and from the rumors early on) that he had little-to-no-respect for the property. And his own words appear to confirm that, whether it's what he intended to convey or not.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4857950
Kingpin wrote:I changed that last bit about Paul's response to Murray being on set because what was originally written was utterly crass, and probably not appropriate within the forum's rules.
Looks like he changed it back. :walterpeck:

Edit: Ow wait, you meant something else. Feigs mouth being compared to a horse asshole isn't utter crass?
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4857955
Alphagaia wrote:Edit: Ow wait, you meant something else. Feigs mouth being compared to a horse asshole isn't utter crass?
I'm still on the fence on that, long ago it was agreed on that the insults used in the films were mostly allowed here. Though I agree with you, it's spite.
Egon's Pompadour wrote:It appears from the trailer (and from the rumors early on) that he had little-to-no-respect for the property. And his own words appear to confirm that, whether it's what he intended to convey or not.
There is a difference between intentionally disrespecting the franchise (though others have chosen to suggest that with more colourful euphemisms), and accidentally stepping on some toes because of differences in creative vision.

I don't believe his first priority as soon as the ink on the contract had begun to try was to go out of his way to disrespect the established franchise.

He may not have the luxury of being able to treat everything as reverently as we do, especially with his wanting to put his own stamp on some things, and Sony mandating others from up on high.

The reboot is a different kettle of fish to what we're used to, and as much as it's felt that this film is disrespectful of the original, I imagine it could've been far worse (To use Revenge of the Fallen as an example, at least we probably won't see the 2016 Ghostbusters high on pot brownies, or a giant ghost with a thinly veiled reference to male genitalia.)
Alphagaia liked this
#4857981
I think feig shouldnt have to bear the cross of hate on his own. Remember Pascal (who ruined Spiderman) and now rothman (who in his time at fox ruined xmen, alien, predator,f4, and buried deadpool and firefly as well as running off some of the biggest names in sci fi from that studio) have had their grubby hands all over gb. The leaks even referred to feig as essentially a hired gun. Feig will take the heat if the gb revival goes south, but I think the blame really should go back on to Sony's executives
Kingpin, Sp9543, SpaceBallz liked this
By Sp9543
#4858000
RaysEctogoggles wrote:I think feig shouldnt have to bear the cross of hate on his own. Remember Pascal (who ruined Spiderman) and now rothman (who in his time at fox ruined xmen, alien, predator,f4, and buried deadpool and firefly as well as running off some of the biggest names in sci fi from that studio) have had their grubby hands all over gb. The leaks even referred to feig as essentially a hired gun. Feig will take the heat if the gb revival goes south, but I think the blame really should go back on to Sony's executives
Exactly.
#4858003
RaysEctogoggles wrote:I think feig shouldnt have to bear the cross of hate on his own. Remember Pascal (who ruined Spiderman) and now rothman (who in his time at fox ruined xmen, alien, predator,f4, and buried deadpool and firefly as well as running off some of the biggest names in sci fi from that studio) have had their grubby hands all over gb. The leaks even referred to feig as essentially a hired gun. Feig will take the heat if the gb revival goes south, but I think the blame really should go back on to Sony's executives
I agree with you that Sony bears the brunt of the blame. They practically prostituted the franchise to the first taker. Remember all the directors who turned it down BECAUSE they respected the property and didn't want to do it an injustice?

Then came along Paul Feig, the man who wrote an article titled "Why Men Aren't Funny" (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/p ... ent-449025). How can someone who has a misandrist attitude be expected to appreciate and understand a beloved comedy, which happened to be male-driven, and translate that for a new generation? He likely didn't even appreciate the humor in Ghostbusters. It was just a platform for his own political motivations, which sucks for women as much as it does for men. When this movie bombs, the subliminal message that studios will infer is "female-led comedies are a disaster." When the message should be "stop trashing classics with shitty reboots."
#4858032
Then came along Paul Feig, the man who wrote an article titled "Why Men Aren't Funny" (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/p ... ent-449025). How can someone who has a misandrist attitude be expected to appreciate and understand a beloved comedy
Uh Im fairly certain thats meant to be a satirical response to a Christopher Hitchens article.
Alphagaia liked this
#4858034
Razorgeist wrote:
Then came along Paul Feig, the man who wrote an article titled "Why Men Aren't Funny" (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/p ... ent-449025). How can someone who has a misandrist attitude be expected to appreciate and understand a beloved comedy
Uh Im fairly certain thats meant to be a satirical response to a Christopher Hitchens article.
Nay, given his proclivity for female-led comedies, it's clearly a reflection of his beliefs. If a male director wrote an article in the same vein and demonstrated a reluctance to cast women in leading roles, he would be regarded as a misogynist.
#4858065
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
Razorgeist wrote:
Uh Im fairly certain thats meant to be a satirical response to a Christopher Hitchens article.
Nay, given his proclivity for female-led comedies, it's clearly a reflection of his beliefs. If a male director wrote an article in the same vein and demonstrated a reluctance to cast women in leading roles, he would be regarded as a misogynist.
No dude seriously its a satirical article.
Alphagaia liked this
#4858070
Razorgeist wrote:
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
Nay, given his proclivity for female-led comedies, it's clearly a reflection of his beliefs. If a male director wrote an article in the same vein and demonstrated a reluctance to cast women in leading roles, he would be regarded as a misogynist.
No dude seriously its a satirical article.
Are you arguing that Paul Feig doesn't legitimately believe that women are funnier than men? Because he's stated this on multiple occasions.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4858071
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
Razorgeist wrote:
Uh Im fairly certain thats meant to be a satirical response to a Christopher Hitchens article.
Nay, given his proclivity for female-led comedies, it's clearly a reflection of his beliefs. If a male director wrote an article in the same vein and demonstrated a reluctance to cast women in leading roles, he would be regarded as a misogynist.
It's a satirical story written during the Comedy Month of the Hollywood Reporter.

We have been through all this before.

If people did some more much needed research before opening their mouth I really think we would have less people hating on Paul or GB16. The amount of false claims by the 'haters' that are taken for truth is really piling up.
For the True Hollywood Reporter's Comedy Issue, writer/director Paul Feig took the age old, tired argument that women aren't funny and turned it on its head by positing that maybe it's men who are the not-so-hilarious ones after all.
http://jezebel.com/paul-feig-wrote-a-hi ... -489479461
#4858072
Alphagaia wrote:
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
Nay, given his proclivity for female-led comedies, it's clearly a reflection of his beliefs. If a male director wrote an article in the same vein and demonstrated a reluctance to cast women in leading roles, he would be regarded as a misogynist.
It's a satirical story written during the Comedy Month of the Hollywood Reporter.

We have been through all this before.

If people did some more much needed research before opening their mouth I really think we would have less people hating on Paul or GB16. The amount of false claims by the 'haters' that are taken for truth is really piling up.
For the True Hollywood Reporter's Comedy Issue, writer/director Paul Feig took the age old, tired argument that women aren't funny and turned it on its head by positing that maybe it's men who are the not-so-hilarious ones after all.
http://jezebel.com/paul-feig-wrote-a-hi ... -489479461
lol You consider an article posted on a radfem website like Jezebel.com "much needed research"? Okay...

Whether or not the article is satire, it clearly does reflect beliefs held by Paul Feig, unless he's just constantly bullshitting everyone about how much funnier he thinks women are than men. It's interesting to me how someone who likes to label anyone a misogynist whom doesn't appreciate his bastardized rendition of a classic film apparently harbors some deep-seated sexism himself.
Last edited by Egon's Pompadour on March 18th, 2016, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4858075
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:
It's a satirical story written during the Comedy Month of the Hollywood Reporter.

We have been through all this before.

If people did some more much needed research before opening their mouth I really think we would have less people hating on Paul or GB16. The amount of false claims by the 'haters' that are taken for truth is really piling up.



http://jezebel.com/paul-feig-wrote-a-hi ... -489479461
lol You consider an article posted on a radfem website like Jezebel.com "much needed research"? Okay... .
All the link needs to convey is prove it's written for the Comedy Issue. Do you deny that fact? I can provide more sources if you want.
Egon's Pompadour wrote:Whether or not the article is satire, it clearly does reflect beliefs held by Paul Feig, unless he's just constantly bullshitting everyone about how much funnier he thinks women are than men.
There is no denying Paul wants more movies with funny women and he will say his opinion on the matter. However, the article you used as your reason why he is vile and bullshitting is proved to be satire, so therefore not admissible.
Last edited by Alphagaia on March 18th, 2016, 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#4858076
Alphagaia wrote:
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
lol You consider an article posted on a radfem website like Jezebel.com "much needed research"? Okay... .
All the link needs to convey is prove it's written for the Comedy Issue. Do you deny that fact? I can provide more sources if you want.
Egon's Pompadour wrote:Whether or not the article is satire, it clearly does reflect beliefs held by Paul Feig, unless he's just constantly bullshitting everyone about how much funnier he thinks women are than men.
There is no denying Paul wants more movies with funny women and he will say his opinion on the matter. However, the article you used as your reason why he is vile and bullshitting is proved to be satire, so therefore not admissible.
Comedy is often used as a means of delivering sincere criticism and scorn. SNL does political parodies more frequently directed at the right-wing. Although I'm more of a moderate myself, their material clearly reflects a certain bias.

Here's an example of satire for you. Are you telling me that because it's comedy, they aren't sincerely criticizing the level of mind-numbing, mass-marketed propaganda that supported Obama's campaign?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac
Last edited by Egon's Pompadour on March 18th, 2016, 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#4858077
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:
All the link needs to convey is prove it's written for the Comedy Issue. Do you deny that fact? I can provide more sources if you want.
The fact that it's comedy doesn't negate the sincerity of his message or beliefs. SNL does political parodies all the time, more often directed at right-wing politics. Though I'm more of a moderate myself, their material clearly reflects a certain bias. The comedic angle is often a means of delivering heartfelt criticism or derision.
You did not comprehend from the article itself that is was a satire. No problem. Happens. However, now that you know that it was satire, do you still see the article as full truth of how he really thinks? Cause if that's true, I can't help you for being stubborn and sadly, a bit misled.
Razorgeist liked this
#4858078
Alphagaia wrote:
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
The fact that it's comedy doesn't negate the sincerity of his message or beliefs. SNL does political parodies all the time, more often directed at right-wing politics. Though I'm more of a moderate myself, their material clearly reflects a certain bias. The comedic angle is often a means of delivering heartfelt criticism or derision.
You did not comprehend from the article itself that is was a satire. No problem. Happens. However, now that you know that it was satire, do you still see the article as full truth if how he really thinks? Cause if that's true, I can't help you for being stubborn and sadly, a bit misled.
I think you're just being deliberately obtuse at this point, in which case, we have nothing further to talk about.
#4858079
Egon's Pompadour wrote: I think you're just being deliberately obtuse at this point, in which case, we have nothing further to talk about.
I'm just setting this as another example of how a 'hater' took something as a fact to belittle GB16 or Feig, while it's still very open to interpretation. And this case, a satirical piece you took for truth.
#4858080
Are you arguing that Paul Feig doesn't legitimately believe that women are funnier than men?
To put it bluntly no.
Because he's stated this on multiple occasions.
Sources please and even if he believes this that dosent make him a misandrist.
#4858083
Alphagaia wrote:
Egon's Pompadour wrote: I think you're just being deliberately obtuse at this point, in which case, we have nothing further to talk about.
I'm just setting this as another example of how a 'hater' took something as a fact to belittle GB16 or Feig, while it's still very open to interpretation. And this case, a satirical piece you took for truth.
On the contrary, I detected the sincerity in his attempt at humor and viewed it in light of other comments which he's made on the subject to form a bigger picture.

"My closest friends have always been women and my best friends growing up were girls. I am a very feminised guy, I guess. I find the female sense of humour much funnier than male humour, because it's less aggressive and I find it supportive and fun." -Paul Feig

“All my friends growing up were girls, so it’s just kind of how I think. I was an only child and I always wanted to have an older sister. And all the funniest people I know are always women, so I think my brain just kind of goes that way.” - Paul Feig

“Women comedy is different than men comedy. Guy comedy is very aggressive, it’s about insulting each other, name-calling, and kind of busting each other’s chops, and that’s not what women’s comedy is. It’s hard to talk in absolutes ’cause you sound like a guy — I find it to be a very supportive kind of comedy, in that it’s a lot of joking off each other." - Paul Feig
#4858086
Look. It's really simple. You are trying to meld quotes from Paul to a satirical article and claim it's his real thoughts. There is a big difference in the quotes you just posted and the article. Don't fetch at straws when you made an honest mistake using the wrong article to boost your claim.
#4858091
Alphagaia wrote:Look. It's really simple. You are trying to meld quotes from Paul to a satirical article and claim it's his real thoughts. There is a big difference in the quotes you just posted and the article. Don't fetch at straws when you made an honest mistake using the wrong article to boost your claim.
Acknowledging the correlation between Paul Feig's quotes above and his article "Why Men Aren't Funny" is hardly grasping at straws. This feeble argument of yours doesn't warrant discourse. Farewell and adieu.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Someone ID'd them on Facebook first, there w[…]

Two specific ideas I have are basically holiday sp[…]

While waiting impatiently for Frozen Empire to rel[…]

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