|
Post by kds on Sept 23, 2021 13:18:43 GMT
Did you end up watching? I did (you sort of talked me into it) and thought it was pretty good. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, but I only thought one thing was kind of forced into the storyline. I didn't see any wokeness or whatever else critics were talking about. I haven't watched it yet, no. But I do intend to one of these days, at least once.
As for the criticism, it's funny considering the damn show hadn't even aired yet! Any criticism coming from the public before a show is even released deserves skepticism. (If it's from actual critics who have seen pre-release previews, that is different of course.)
Fans gonna fan. Some will resist any remake no matter what. I remember Ghostbusters fans started complaining about the 2016 remake before the cast was even announced (I'll admit once the cast was announced, some of the criticism was warranted).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 27, 2021 17:40:37 GMT
This is somewhat interesting to me: P.T. Anderson has a new movie, "Licorice Pizza," which appears to be an early '70s teenage coming-of-age movie set in the movie-making world of LA. It stars as its young protagonists Phillip Seymour Hoffman's son Cooper and Haim drummer Alana Haim, as well as Bradley Cooper, Sean Penn, Tom Waits, Maya Rudolph, and others.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 20, 2021 12:26:30 GMT
My wife and I are each fans of The Muppets, and we're always looking for new Halloween stuff to watch each year. Since she doesn't care for horror movies, and I don't care for Hocus Pocus, there's not a ton of Halloween programming we watch together.
So, we pulled up Disney+ and checked out The Muppets Haunted Mansion, was premiered on October 8.
(Possible SPOILERS below)
I have to say it was underwhelming, like much of Muppets material since the brilliant reboot movie from 2011. The 50 min special did have some amusing call backs to the original Muppet Show. The "blink and you miss it" cameos as ghosts and statues didn't really do anything for me. The story focused on Gonzo and Pepe, and I think it would've been far better if this adventure had more than just short appearances from the rest of the gang (they also mostly appeared as ghosts).
So, this is definitely not a special that will be in our October rotation. And, much like 2014's Muppets Most Wanted, and the short 2020 series Muppets Now, I think Disney has dropped the ball with The Muppets, yet again.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 29, 2021 17:46:17 GMT
I mentioned it in the Lounge last week. But, this past Friday, I went to a movie theater for the first time in nearly five years to see Ghostbusters: Afterlife.
I won't post any spoilers, but I find the movie highly enjoyable. I was concerned about a group of teenagers taking over the franchise, but the young actors were quite good. Paul Rudd was great, but I feel like he could've had a bigger role. The movie might lean a little much on nostalgia, which will probably make it less rewatchable than the two original movies, but I also felt like the movie did a good job creating a new direction for the franchise (as it seems more movies will likely follow).
My one real complaint is that I feel like the movie could've used a few more laughs. I hope further entries will be a little more light hearted.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 29, 2021 17:57:58 GMT
... I also felt like the movie did a good job creating a new direction for the franchise (as it seems more movies will likely follow). I believe I heard on the aforementioned radio review from a few days back that some of the higher-ups involved (I forget whether it's writers, director, producers, or what) were contracted to do an origins story next.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 29, 2021 18:07:26 GMT
... I also felt like the movie did a good job creating a new direction for the franchise (as it seems more movies will likely follow). I believe I heard on the aforementioned radio review from a few days back that some of the higher-ups involved (I forget whether it's writers, director, producers, or what) were contracted to do an origins story next. I hadn't read that, but I'm really not sure what kind of origins story they'd do. The original movie was the Ghostbusters origin story, and Afterlife is effectively an origin story for the new gang. Unless they wanted to do an origin story for one of the big bads (Gozer or Vigo), which could basically be a story without the Ghostbusters?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 29, 2021 18:12:22 GMT
I believe I heard on the aforementioned radio review from a few days back that some of the higher-ups involved (I forget whether it's writers, director, producers, or what) were contracted to do an origins story next. I hadn't read that, but I'm really not sure what kind of origins story they'd do. The original movie was the Ghostbusters origin story, and Afterlife is effectively an origin story for the new gang. Unless they wanted to do an origin story for one of the big bads (Gozer or Vigo), which could basically be a story without the Ghostbusters? I'm trying to recall what (little) was said about it. Hopefully I'm not imagining it...
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 29, 2021 18:16:40 GMT
I hadn't read that, but I'm really not sure what kind of origins story they'd do. The original movie was the Ghostbusters origin story, and Afterlife is effectively an origin story for the new gang. Unless they wanted to do an origin story for one of the big bads (Gozer or Vigo), which could basically be a story without the Ghostbusters? I'm trying to recall what (little) was said about it. Hopefully I'm not imagining it... I did read a rumor that an early script of Afterlife was supposed to be more about the story of Ivo Shandor, who was referenced in the original movie for starting a cult of Gozer Worshippers, and designing the highrise that Gozer took over. This isn't really a spoiler since it was mentioned in the trailer, but Shandor is referenced in Afterlife, but they didn't really go into his back story or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 29, 2021 18:22:34 GMT
OK, here is what I was thinking of: it wasn't from the radio review (which I found and re-listened to, again getting annoyed not that both reviewers said the 2016 version was the best--which is their taste/choice--but that both implied and/or said that the new one was basically just an excuse to please fanboys who were angry that the '16 one was all women ... as if it would be impossible to prefer the original on any other grounds than sexism?), but from Wiki, where I'd looked to bone up on what had been done.
"In May 2019, Aykroyd announced that he wrote a prequel script with the working title of Ghostbusters High, and that there are two follow-up projects to Ghostbusters: Afterlife in development. The prequel will explore New Jersey during 1969, when the primary characters first met as teenagers. The project is being considered alternatively for a television series, with Jason Reitman involved with its development. Aykroyd says that he envisions the project as a "finale" to the franchise."
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 29, 2021 18:30:03 GMT
OK, here is what I was thinking of: it wasn't from the radio review (which I found and re-listened to, again getting annoyed not that both reviewers said the 2016 version was the best--which is their taste/choice--but that both implied and/or said that the new one was basically just an excuse to please fanboys who were angry that the '16 one was all women ... as if it would be impossible to prefer the original on any other grounds than sexism?), but from Wiki, where I'd looked to bone up on what had been done.
"In May 2019, Aykroyd announced that he wrote a prequel script with the working title of Ghostbusters High, and that there are two follow-up projects to Ghostbusters: Afterlife in development. The prequel will explore New Jersey during 1969, when the primary characters first met as teenagers. The project is being considered alternatively for a television series, with Jason Reitman involved with its development. Aykroyd says that he envisions the project as a "finale" to the franchise."
I read a review from Roger Ebert who did not like Afterlife, and basically said it was made to "appease fans who couldn't handle the idea of female Ghostbusters." Funny thing is the fans are loving Afterlife, and the younger Ghostbusters are half female, with the primary focus on McKenna Grace's character. And, I know there's no accounting for taste, but there's no way possible anyone could like the 2016 remake more than the 1984 classic. (I know it's possible, but come on). I think a GB High prequel would be flawed from jump because it wouldn't include the Winston Zeddemore character, who Venkman, Stantz, and Spengler don't meet until well into the first movie. I'm hoping with the success of Afterlife, they decide to focus their attention on the new gang. Although, I wouldn't mind an off shoot TV show.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 1, 2021 13:30:13 GMT
Kap, I stumbled upon this video last night before falling asleep. It expands on the stance critics are taking against Ghostbusters Afterlife because it's essentially giving fans want they've always wanted, which is exactly what the 2016 remake was not. And it goes into how the 2016 remake became political even to Leslie Jones foolishly equating the creation of GB AFterlife as "something Trump would do."
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 1, 2021 14:15:28 GMT
Thanks for sharing that. I can't say I enjoyed it, because it was pointing out an assortment of enraging things, but it was good to watch. The main point, which is that the movie is "bad" for giving fans what they want instead of what they should want, seems to sum up a lot of what is annoying about our culture right now.
At the same time, I wonder if it hasn't always been that way to some extent. Think about the history of horror movies, rock and roll, comic books, and so on: "serious" journalists and criticism traditionally said they were at best useless and at worst harmful. It wasn't until Baby Boomers grew up and took those jobs that they started pointing out the cultural value in the Beatles and Dylan, the serious metaphors in horror and comics, etc.
This might just be a new version of that. There is what we do like, and there is what the self-appointed (via their profession) arbiters of culture and taste tell us we ought to like. They take their priorities and try to assign them to the rest of us. And since the two rarely meet, we get lectured.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 1, 2021 14:50:12 GMT
Thanks for sharing that. I can't say I enjoyed it, because it was pointing out an assortment of enraging things, but it was good to watch. The main point, which is that the movie is "bad" for giving fans what they want instead of what they should want, seems to sum up a lot of what is annoying about our culture right now.
At the same time, I wonder if it hasn't always been that way to some extent. Think about the history of horror movies, rock and roll, comic books, and so on: "serious" journalists and criticism traditionally said they were at best useless and at worst harmful. It wasn't until Baby Boomers grew up and took those jobs that they started pointing out the cultural value in the Beatles and Dylan, the serious metaphors in horror and comics, etc.
This might just be a new version of that. There is what we do like, and there is what the self-appointed (via their profession) arbiters of culture and taste tell us we ought to like. They take their priorities and try to assign them to the rest of us. And since the two rarely meet, we get lectured.
It's definitely an interesting watch. That's kind of the vibe I got from the couple negative reviews I read about Afterlife, that "it's bad because it's what the fans want," which is weird to me. Fans drive the industry. The funny thing to me is the success of Afterlife proves that Ghostbusters fans really have no problem with a diverse cast. It was just that the 2016 movie got it so wrong. It was interesting to see that clip of Aykroyd saying he tried to help Feig, but Feig wouldn't listen. If Dan Fucking Aykroyd is giving you notes on a Ghostbusters project, you listen. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that something as harmless as Ghostbusters could be made so divisive in the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 1, 2021 14:58:27 GMT
Seriously.
If there were one thing I think would help our society just calm the hell down, it would be this: instead of trying to get everyone to agree on everything, just accept that they won't, but don't over-emphasize the importance of the disagreements. Because we'll NEVER all think alike, which means we'll NEVER have the same priorities, the same likes and dislikes, the same politics, the same aesthetics. It's fine! Who cares? Save the hatred for things that really matter, things that truly threaten us.
But somebody didn't like the female-led cast of a movie? Oh well... Maybe it is sexism for some people; probably it isn't for most. (In fact, I would guess it was largely the tone of "we're giving you this new, superior, female-led version of the movie that you should like more, and if you don't, you're sexist" that turned people off. If they'd just released the damn movie, it could have come and gone like a thousand others. People don't like to be lectured about what they are supposed to like.) Either way, let it go, America.
Sorry, I don't mean to make this something that has to be in the politics thread.
This new Ghostbusters movie has piqued my interest to the point that I think I'll probably watch it. That's more than I could say for the last one.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 1, 2021 15:06:39 GMT
Seriously.
If there were one thing I think would help our society just calm the hell down, it would be this: instead of trying to get everyone to agree on everything, just accept that they won't, but don't over-emphasize the importance of the disagreements. Because we'll NEVER all think alike, which means we'll NEVER have the same priorities, the same likes and dislikes, the same politics, the same aesthetics. It's fine! Who cares? Save the hatred for things that really matter, things that truly threaten us.
But somebody didn't like the female-led cast of a movie? Oh well... Maybe it is sexism for some people; probably it isn't for most. (In fact, I would guess it was largely the tone of "we're giving you this new, superior, female-led version of the movie that you should like more, and if you don't, you're sexist" that turned people off. If they'd just released the damn movie, it could have come and gone like a thousand others. People don't like to be lectured about what they are supposed to like.) Either way, let it go, America.
Sorry, I don't mean to make this something that has to be in the politics thread.
This new Ghostbusters movie has piqued my interest to the point that I think I'll probably watch it. That's more than I could say for the last one.
I was initially turned off by Ghostbusters (2016) when the cast was announced. I still watch SNL on occasion, and have never found Kate McKinnon, Kristin Wiig, or Leslie Jones funny in the least. I've never had any interest in Melissa McCarthy's shtick. And when I watched the trailer for the first time, I know that movie was never going to get two hours of my time. I like how the video I posted made the point that, had the movie been released in 2015, it would've been relegated to the dustbin of pop culture history, but it happened to be released during that toxic and divisive election year. One more point before moving on, I find it hilarious that the clip singled out a critic who criticized Afterlife for "erasing the 2016 movie from Ghostbusters canon." It was never part of the canon of the original Ghostbusters, it was a remake. The fact that the original actors made cameos as other characters should be a clue. But, no, that critic decided to ignore facts to push an agenda.
|
|