Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4882900
featofstrength wrote:With noses so far in the sky already, I'm really surprised we haven't heard, "So? f*** Ernie Hudson! Washed up, old has been! He's just bitter because he wasn't in it more.
"Planet Ghostbusters" on twitter tried to shame Ernie's opinion. It was only a matter of time before some of the pro-rebooters started turning on the originals.
#4882902
featofstrength wrote:With noses so far in the sky already, I'm really surprised we haven't heard, "So? f*** Ernie Hudson! Washed up, old has been! He's just bitter because he wasn't in it more.
The only fans I ever saw attack the original cast in relation to this movie...were the detractors. Not all the detractors (since you guys need that spelled out). But only. And it got really ugly. Those "fans" were lucky the actors probably don't read that stuff. Yikes.
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on October 12th, 2016, 1:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Kingpin liked this
#4882903
SpaceBallz wrote:In a "perfect world" star wars fans would have backed up the prequels too? Complete with Jar Jar, I suppose?
Back then, fans at least had a laugh over the prequels. With GB16, it's been nothing but rage, rage, rage.
but that film stayed in continuity
Yeah...I have actual concerns in life...I wish "continuity" was my biggest problem.
With a "screw the fans" attitude it makes me wonder if you're actually Tom Rothman.
I'm a fan of a movie (three movies, actually). Not you. What have you done for me lately besides hurl unoriginal shill insults, lol.

I'm not responding again so don't bother. I'm tired of this fanbase doing nothing but makes itself miserable. "Grow up" is the understatement of the century.
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on October 12th, 2016, 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sav C, Alphagaia, Kingpin and 1 others liked this
#4882908
JurorNo.2 wrote: I'm a fan of a movie (three movies, actually). Not you. What have you done for me lately besides hurl unoriginal shill insults, lol. The teenagers on this board somehow have more class.
You mean like shaming the fanbase with every other comment/reply/post on these forums? The site is called "Ghostbusters Fans" and your grouping everybody up with the twitter hounds.
pferreira1983 liked this
#4882909
SpaceBallz wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote: I'm a fan of a movie (three movies, actually). Not you. What have you done for me lately besides hurl unoriginal shill insults, lol. The teenagers on this board somehow have more class.
You mean like shaming the fanbase with every other comment/reply/post on these forums? The site is called "Ghostbusters Fans" and your grouping everybody up with the twitter hounds.
Because no one here has been freaking out over this movie at all, lol.

You want to talk shaming, you don't want to know what I've been called, for months, for the crime of not hating a movie trailer. Forgive me for not exactly bursting with pride for this fanbase lately. Don't even go there. Better yet, stay away from me. Forever isn't long enough. It's a movie. Grow up.

And next time you don't feel like reading an entire post, here's a thought, DON'T REPLY.
#4882913
Sav C wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:The teenagers on this board somehow have more class.
"You're like school in July--no class." :D

I think it's a quote from Fat Albert, but I first heard it on Scrubs.
Lol, yup, that was one of the big catch phrases on Fat Albert. And sometimes I should learn to just sum my grievances up in one sentence like that, lol.
Sav C, Kingpin liked this
#4882920
SpaceBallz wrote:
featofstrength wrote:With noses so far in the sky already, I'm really surprised we haven't heard, "So? f*** Ernie Hudson! Washed up, old has been! He's just bitter because he wasn't in it more.
"Planet Ghostbusters" on twitter tried to shame Ernie's opinion. It was only a matter of time before some of the pro-rebooters started turning on the originals.
Not to mention all the modern criticism reviews desperate to point out cracks in what was once considered a near perfect film ("it was never all that great anyway"). And some ladies and a few fellas who just never "got it."
#4882923
SpaceBallz wrote:
featofstrength wrote:With noses so far in the sky already, I'm really surprised we haven't heard, "So? f*** Ernie Hudson! Washed up, old has been! He's just bitter because he wasn't in it more.
"Planet Ghostbusters" on twitter tried to shame Ernie's opinion. It was only a matter of time before some of the pro-rebooters started turning on the originals.
Proton Charging (they're the same account)? You think the following is "shaming" Ernie's opinion?
Seems ill-timed, two days away from the blu-ray release...
Should also be pointed out Hudson never calls the film "failed", even though the headline was made to suggest he had.
I'm a little puzzled by his thoughts on the lack of relationship between the characters. While the original team had great chemistry, they're not exactly well defined by their relationships with one another, particularly Zeddemore who rolls in half-way through the movie and is deliberately a bit of a cypher so as to act as a conduit for the audience.
And thus another film-studies term paper is born...
I don't think that's shaming his opinion at all, personally. It is pointing out that the article tries to imply something that he didn't say. And then sort of clarifies that Ernie's opinion about the relationships seems a little interesting, given that, truthfully, the relationships in the original movie are not incredibly well-defined either. I don't see how that's shaming. Was there another quote you were referencing?
Last edited by Kingpin on October 13th, 2016, 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: added quote codes
Alphagaia, Razorgeist liked this
#4882926
Doctor Venkman wrote:
SpaceBallz wrote:
"Planet Ghostbusters" on twitter tried to shame Ernie's opinion. It was only a matter of time before some of the pro-rebooters started turning on the originals.
Proton Charging (they're the same account)? You think the following is "shaming" Ernie's opinion?
"Seems ill-timed, two days away from the blu-ray release...
Should also be pointed out Hudson never calls the film "failed", even though the headline was made to suggest he had.
I'm a little puzzled by his thoughts on the lack of relationship between the characters. While the original team had great chemistry, they're not exactly well defined by their relationships with one another, particularly Zeddemore who rolls in half-way through the movie and is deliberately a bit of a cypher so as to act as a conduit for the audience.
And thus another film-studies term paper is born..."
I don't think that's shaming his opinion at all, personally. It is pointing out that the article tries to imply something that he didn't say. And then sort of clarifies that Ernie's opinion about the relationships seems a little interesting, given that, truthfully, the relationships in the original movie are not incredibly well-defined either. I don't see how that's shaming. Was there another quote you were referencing?
I was very careful not to connect "failed" to Ernie's criticism like the article did because I knew someone would try and try to counter and run with it. (Surprise! Some trolls can read!)He doesn't say "fail", but its still an honest criticism, and a detractor from the boot for some... and that kind of talk isn't welcome around these part. If the article itself was honest and wasn't flamebaiting with its lead-in, maybe it would say "what Ernie Hudson felt the reboot was missing?" Maybe we can get the title of the thread changed as well?
Last edited by Kingpin on October 13th, 2016, 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: added quote code
Alphagaia liked this
#4882932
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Sav C wrote: "You're like school in July--no class." :D

I think it's a quote from Fat Albert, but I first heard it on Scrubs.
Lol, yup, that was one of the big catch phrases on Fat Albert. And sometimes I should learn to just sum my grievances up in one sentence like that, lol.
I've only watched the first few episodes, but then it left Netflix. If it gets back on Netflix I'll probably start watching it again.

I try to maintain some level of class, but I don't think I do so well at that. One first-impression I made on here was by calling the person a "downer" over a comment that was really benign. It's the only thing that I really regret posting. So much for having class :sigh:
deadderek liked this
#4882982
featofstrength wrote:
Doctor Venkman wrote:
Proton Charging (they're the same account)? You think the following is "shaming" Ernie's opinion?

"Seems ill-timed, two days away from the blu-ray release...
Should also be pointed out Hudson never calls the film "failed", even though the headline was made to suggest he had.
I'm a little puzzled by his thoughts on the lack of relationship between the characters. While the original team had great chemistry, they're not exactly well defined by their relationships with one another, particularly Zeddemore who rolls in half-way through the movie and is deliberately a bit of a cypher so as to act as a conduit for the audience.
And thus another film-studies term paper is born..."

I don't think that's shaming his opinion at all, personally. It is pointing out that the article tries to imply something that he didn't say. And then sort of clarifies that Ernie's opinion about the relationships seems a little interesting, given that, truthfully, the relationships in the original movie are not incredibly well-defined either. I don't see how that's shaming. Was there another quote you were referencing?
I was very careful not to connect "failed" to Ernie's criticism like the article did because I knew someone would try and try to counter and run with it. (Surprise! Some trolls can read!)He doesn't say "fail", but its still an honest criticism, and a detractor from the boot for some... and that kind of talk isn't welcome around these part. If the article itself was honest and wasn't flamebaiting with its lead-in, maybe it would say "what Ernie Hudson felt the reboot was missing?" Maybe we can get the title of the thread changed as well?
This is almost exact how I think of the matter and if I could like it twice, I would.
Just one tiny thing: honest criticism is very much welcome and the people who cannot take are imo just as bad as the ones who try to flamebait.
Last edited by Kingpin on October 13th, 2016, 7:12 am, edited 2 times in total.Reason: Added emphasis for quoted section
#4882986
timeware wrote:I still feel they could have developed Ernie's character more then just a cameo and fans would have been more into this movie even if Ernie wasn't playing Winston.
There didn't really seem any need to develop the character he was playing beyond what we were already given. His role was as a cameo, not as a background or a second-tier character. To have added more development to him would've been to take away time from the other characters - as underdeveloped as they may've been thanks to the editing process.
Doctor Venkman wrote:I'm glad that you clarified that the bold part wasn't part of the quote, but I think that's still fairly misleading to include it in the quotes
Agreed. The original post, as well as a quoting of it have been edited to give a more accurate reflection of Ernie's remarks, moving the added comment so that it's clearly Derek's observation to avoid confusion in the future.
Alphagaia wrote:GB 3 can still happen, if someone dares to take up that gauntlet and gets all the stars to align.
I believe the full title for that project would be: "Ghostbusters 3: 'When Hell Freezes Over' or 'When Bill Murray stops acting like an elusive aloof jerk', whichever happens first." :)
Alphagaia wrote:Whenever they make a new movie, I think the videogame becomes 2.5 or non canon, but it depends on the story presented.
Hopefully it'll be a case of "not specifically referred to, but not contradicted either", something that can be kept quietly in-continuity even if there isn't a direct reference - we don't even hear Gozer mentioned by name in Ghostbusters II, just a vague reference to the top of 550 Central Park West being blown up and the invoking of Mr. Stay Puft. :)
SpaceBallz wrote:You mean like shaming the fanbase with every other comment/reply/post on these forums? The site is called "Ghostbusters Fans" and your grouping everybody up with the twitter hounds.
This summer shone a bright spotlight on some of the darker elements of our community, some of which some folks still seem reluctant to acknowledge, let alone be proactive about. I've no doubt Juror will stop reminding us when we finally admit that not everyone who is a fan of Ghostbusters is actually a friend of the community.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Don't even go there. Better yet, stay away from me. Forever isn't long enough. It's a movie. Grow up.

And next time you don't feel like reading an entire post, here's a thought, DON'T REPLY.
If you go into a user's profile, and select the "Add Foe" option, it should hide that specific user's posts from view. :)
featofstrength wrote:and that kind of talk isn't welcome around these part.[
It was the hyperbole and vitriol that wasn't welcome, but nevermind.
featofstrength wrote:Maybe we can get the title of the thread changed as well?
Agreed, it's since been revised.
Sav C, Alphagaia, deadderek liked this
#4882989
It happens to all of us.

And because it's been hinted at, but not stated in so many words:

For all its failings, the reboot brought Ghostbusters back into the public eye and got people talking about the franchise again. There is a silver lining in all of this, even if the storm cloud looks bigger than the lining.
JurorNo.2, Sav C, deadderek and 1 others liked this
#4883018
Kingpin wrote:If you go into a user's profile, and select the "Add Foe" option, it should hide that specific user's posts from view. :)
Does the person get notified if you add them as a foe? Also, do they still see your posts, and if so do you still get notified if they quote you?
#4883021
I've never understood on ANY forum why you would entirely block someone to where you cannot see their posts.

Trying to read with comments missing would drive me crazy.

On another note, the reason I titled the thread as I did was because that was the title of the article.

Shame it's changed but I'll go with it.

I'd love to see honest opinions from the rest of the original cast now that all is said and done.
Sav C liked this
#4883022
Wiig is the one I want to hear from. The word was that she was not happy with the production and didn't get along with McCarthy. Also I don't recall her doing any solo promotion for the film. Just in the group and then Feig and McCarthy. It will be interesting to hear what actually went down once the NDA's expire
deadderek liked this
#4883028
DarkSpectre wrote:You wont see their posts unless you click on them in the thread.
OK, thanks. Kind of like spoiler tags then.
deadderek wrote:I've never understood on ANY forum why you would entirely block someone to where you cannot see their posts.

Trying to read with comments missing would drive me crazy.
I haven't run into anyone who deserves to be blocked, and would only block someone if they repeatedly gave me a really hard time over my opinions (I'm fine with sarcastic remarks about them though.)

It would be difficult reading a fragmented topic, that's for sure.
#4883030
Sav C wrote:Does the person get notified if you add them as a foe?
I ran a test on it last year with the profile of someone I was on good terms with, they didn't appear to get a notification of the foe status.
deadderek wrote:I've never understood on ANY forum why you would entirely block someone to where you cannot see their posts.
Although your point about the missing responses is valid, it's a means to giving those who encounter people they just can't stand some sort of reprieve.
Sav C, deadderek liked this
#4883043
Kingpin wrote:
Sav C wrote:Does the person get notified if you add them as a foe?
I ran a test on it last year with the profile of someone I was on good terms with, they didn't appear to get a notification of the foe status.
Thanks, that's good to know. It's somewhat doubtful I'll ever have to use it, but if I do I'd rather the person not find out about it.
#4883063
Link's not cooperating, but is this the one you meant? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/p ... hts-938225

Most people online have said the extended cut is way better. That's becoming more and more common in Hollywood (so no, this is not yet another opportunity to bash this particular movie or studio. ;) ). I remember a seeing a couple deleted scenes from Iron Man 2 that clearly would have made it a more mature film. Studios claim that's what they want, and then they panic and throw that all out the window. Same thing happened to Suicide Squad. Good thing it had the good graces of a trailer to fall back on.
"Was it the greatest trailer in the world? No, it was not, and we had our arguments about it with the studio," he said. "But at the same time, I don't think it's the worst trailer ever made in the history of mankind."
And that sums up this entire year in a nutshell. Yes, the trailer could have been way better. But did it warrant the insanity we witnessed? Nope!

And I do have to agree that all this outrage did seem to coincide with the current political climate. I mean we even had miniature Trump (Milo) thrown into the mix, lol. And Pascall I guess was the Hillary with the feminist agenda who couldn't be trusted (and hey she had an email problem too, lol). Meanwhile, stuck in the middle somewhere was the movie itself. Not on par with the original, but a fun watch in itself (again, especially after the extended cut, hehe).
Alphagaia, Sav C, Kingpin and 1 others liked this
#4883074
The only cut I've seen is the extended one, so maybe that's why I liked it so much! Generally it's a bit of a gamble watching the extended cut, as sometimes the stuff really should've been left on the floor, but this time it was probably the right choice to watch it.
Alphagaia liked this
#4883078
Correction: Paul Feig "didn't realize" that Ghostbusters is a.massive pop culture icon and beloved by far more people than just its own fandom, and that not a single person wanted it rebooted, but took it on himself to accept the job despite having repeatedly turned it down because he had "no interest".

Also: That whole section about the movie being made during a "perfect storm" of protesting the male patriarchy = Feig admitting what his true agenda was all along.

Paul, you made a movie that is not as successful as your previous ones....it can happen. Especially when you mess around with a movie milestone, wanting to make your own version and doing a carbon copy of it.
#4883080
And I do have to agree that all this outrage did seem to coincide with the current political climate. I mean we even had miniature Trump (Milo) thrown into the mix, lol. And Pascall I guess was the Hillary with the feminist agenda who couldn't be trusted (and hey she had an email problem too, lol). Meanwhile, stuck in the middle somewhere was the movie itself. Not on par with the original, but a fun watch in itself (again, especially after the extended cut, hehe).
I think Paul was the bigger feminist, even more so then Hillary or Pascal. If they didn't involve politics the movie would have been more fun. There was an article posted on the front page earlier where he's still blaming the fans for the mediocre performance of 2016.

I really don't like him calling Ghostbusters an all boys club when we've had female GB's doing cosplay, in the comics and cartoons. I still have an issue with him wanting or willing to ignore the fact that female Ghostbusters previously existed in the canon.

I plan on renting the movie this weekend. I will watch the extended version first to see if it's any better and give more of an in depth review then my previous one.
#4883081
Raystantz Italy wrote:Correction: Paul Feig "didn't realize" that Ghostbusters is a.massive pop culture icon and beloved by far more people than just its own fandom
Clearly he did realize that, he did call it a game changer. What he didn't realize was the nostalgia stranglehold people younger than him would have over it.
and that not a single person wanted it rebooted
That tends to be true for all franchises. Doesn't explain the massive heart attacks fans had over this particular reboot.
Also: That whole section about the movie being made during a "perfect storm" of protesting the male patriarchy = Feig admitting what his true agenda was all along.
I do think liberals overreact with that "patriarchy" thing. But I also think Feig is correct that a lot of the insanity over this movie bares a striking resemblances to the insanity over this election.

Btw, about these terms like "massive pop culture icon" and "movie milestone." I'm reminded of something Frank Oz once said about Jim Henson. "He wasn't precious about [The Muppets]....That makes us gag, simply gag!" If you like a movie, you like it. If it was influential, you recognize it. But the minute you make it precious, like Gollum precious, is where things can get ugly.
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on October 14th, 2016, 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Razorgeist liked this
#4883082
timeware wrote:
I think Paul was the bigger feminist, even more so then Hillary or Pascal. If they didn't involve politics the movie would have been more fun. There was an article posted on the front page earlier where he's still blaming the fans for the mediocre performance of 2016.

I really don't like him calling Ghostbusters an all boys club when we've had female GB's doing cosplay, in the comics and cartoons. I still have an issue with him wanting or willing to ignore the fact that female Ghostbusters previously existed in the canon.

I plan on renting the movie this weekend. I will watch the extended version first to see if it's any better and give more of an in depth review then my previous one.
The movie didn't involve politics. The leads just happened to be women, but their lines could have been given to either gender really.

And what is he supposed to think when so many fans lose their minds declaring "women aren't funny"? It did happen...a lot. Whether we want to face it or not. And the idea that just wanting to have female leads is some kind of evil agenda...again...what is he supposed to think? And anyway, he's made the effort to reach out to some of the cosplaying groups, and he was in that Ghostheads documentary. Thing is, those fans are automatically dismissed as shills. ;)

And just because there were some female characters in a one season cartoon from the 90s and the comics doesn't mean the majority of the viewing public knows they exist or will ever be planning to watch/read them.

Any idea when you might get the Goggle metallic la[…]

Be careful removing the Hasbro weathering using […]

Are these autographs legit?

This is over a month old, but none of the four sig[…]

Charlesworth Dynamics Trap Build

Hi All, The Trap is coming on, I've nearly finish[…]