Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

If you gonna act 'Murrican DAWG, you gotta have the look too!

Eat those McNuggets, Deep fry that chimichanga!  WRAP EVERYTHING IN BACON.

And if you STILL can't have all american pimples-- Well... There's drugs for that!

[JoshuaFH]

I like to think that Yoink is secretly American.

I like to think that sometimes, too!   

While Yoink seems to have a number of self-esteem related issues (and I wish him the best with them, honest.), acne does not seem to be one of them. 

Truly my greatest achievement thus far: never having had a zit.

...Huh, perhaps this is why the S.A.D (Standard American Diet) is so full of greasy foods - so that the US government can someday harvest the putrid pores of their pimply populace for their precious oil content!

That's one aspect of it, but SAD's ultimate goal is to solve global overpopulation by making everyone too fat and ugly to ever have any chance to breed. We're still far away, but we're making strides in Mcdonald technology every year.

[wierd]

I like to think that Yoink is secretly American.

I like to think that sometimes, too!   

While Yoink seems to have a number of self-esteem related issues (and I wish him the best with them, honest.), acne does not seem to be one of them. 

Truly my greatest achievement thus far: never having had a zit.

...Huh, perhaps this is why the S.A.D (Standard American Diet) is so full of greasy foods - so that the US government can someday harvest the putrid pores of their pimply populace for their precious oil content!

That's one aspect of it, but SAD's ultimate goal is to solve global overpopulation by making everyone too fat and ugly to ever have any chance to breed. We're still far away, but we're making strides in Mcdonald technology every year.

And here I thought it was just the lowest common denominator of "People cannot afford real food" + "People do not have the time to actually cook real food, because they spend all their time driving and working" + "Fast food is a multi-billion dollar industry that has captured regulators" + "Provably horribad food additives are subsidized by cashcrop farmers unions with lots of political pull" + "ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND POWERFUL MAMMON!"

Huh... Oh well.  Obesity as population control...  Interesting angle.

[pisskop]

It makes about as much sense as making a chick flick about being pregnant have a male lead reprising the role of the pregnant person, "BECAUSE INCLUSION!".

Fie upon you and your small-minded dumbery!

4.6 stars out of 10. ON IMDB.

Rotten tomatoes gives it a very rotten rating.

I think I made my point.   EG, that such a movie would be total shit.  And look--- IT WAS!

GB2016 failed not because girls were in it, but because it wasn't a really good movie and most people, both creators/supporters and critics gave far more importance and focus on the all girls cast than to making a good movie.

BINGO.  The movie was a vehicle for a statement, instead of a statement being slipped into a well considered narrative.  The audience noticed.

Junior failed for different reasons.  Junior was part of a larger trend, towards feminism, but in popular movie culture, to explore the divide between the sexes.  The movie focused on what would happen if you gave an ultra-masculine typecast (swhartz) whose specialization was awkward comedy (Batman Forever, 'I'll be Back'', Kindergarten Cop) a definitively feminine attribute.

The difference between the two was a matter of degree and premise.  Imagine been Rob Schneider was the star of a movie about a pregnant man.  Good Movie?  Unfortunately entirely too plausible for him.  What about Mel Gibson (What Women Want)?  Gibson, unlike Steiner, also explored this diivde of the sexes.  Remember books like "Men are from Mars, Women form Venus'?

[wierd]

It is my opinion talking here-- but I believe I could make a serious movie about this subject, and make it actually good. (plot wise at least. Directing is a real skill, and not one I claim to have.)

Reproductive rights are a real thing, and the notion of "Gay people having BABIES!? EWWW!" is a very real thing.  As such, I could very seriously see a genuine "chick-flick" drama that is actually dead-pan serious about what the dangers and travails of a gay male couple trying to get a cloned/tissue-engineered uterine transplant, for the purposes of having their own biological child, in a world that is not ready for either the implications nor the technology to exist, complete with stonewalling from insurance companies, political pundits not wanting to include such a procedure under state assisted medical care, friends and family being disturbed by the notion, and the general lack of public understanding behind such a thing--- Would actually be like. We could throw in some church do-gooders picketing the hospital that was willing to perform the procedure, and throw in some extremist bombings too.

I could see it being done and done right.  The problem is that to do it right, you have to paint a grisly picture, because that is what is actually there.  This would NOT be a comedy.  It would be a serious drama, where this role is cast explicitly that way, to tell *THAT* story, and every attention to detail would be given to make that story as lifelike and believable as possible.

That is very much *NOT* what I was describing though, when I made my quip.  More "Oh, it's so silly being pregnant today! Oh yeah, I'm a guy! Because!" 

EG, the first is "This is a science fiction drama, that is as true to the current status quo as we can write. As best we can tell, this is what we could expect to happen."  and leaves the "MESSAGE!" up to the audience (Do you REALLY want that future? If not, what parts did you find objectionable and why? Contemplate. We aren't here to moralize to you.) where the second is "Oh yeah, this is NORMAL NOW, and you are A HORRIBLE PERSON if you disagree for any reason! It does not matter that the plot is transparent, vaccuous, and horrible--- YOU MUST LIKE IT, OR YOU ARE HORRIBLE!"

The former does everything possible to tell a compelling story, in which the message is an essential component.  The latter is tacking on a political statement to unrelated subject matter, and demanding the audience love it.

One makes for good cinema.  The other does not.


EG--

"It has been 20+ years since the 1980s.  If the ghost busters were real, and professional paranormal elimination was a thing in modern New York, how would a group of female entrepreneurs tackle a startup ghost elimination business?"

VS

"It's a remake of Ghost Busters-- BUT ALL THE CAST IS FEMALE! BECAUSE WE CAN!" (YOU MUST LOVE IT, OR YOU ARE A MISOGYNIST!)

The former would have had the potential to be a good movie.  The second? It was doomed before it even was finished being written.

[pisskop]

With popular streaming services making their own feature-length movies and mini-series, we may yet get to see OC like that . . .  Give netflix a call.



A band of female entrepreneurs starting up a competing ghost business 20 years later sounds fun, and has a lot of potential.  They would be taken seriously as any other ghost buster, and there's plenty of room for comedy.  Ghost busters 2 was all about how pointless the busters were after they solved the ghost problem.

[Rolan7]

"It has been 20+ years since the 1980s.  If the ghost busters were real, and professional paranormal elimination was a thing in modern New York, how would a group of female entrepreneurs tackle a startup ghost elimination business?"

A movie about modern women entrepreneurs breaking into an established male field?  Could be a good movie, but a Ghostbusters movie?  It sounds even more agenda'd than GB2016, and I feel like the franchise's fundamental hamminess would counter the serious theme.

GB2016 was bad, but largely in the fun way that GB was always bad.

VS

"It's a remake of Ghost Busters-- BUT ALL THE CAST IS FEMALE! BECAUSE WE CAN!" (YOU MUST LOVE IT, OR YOU ARE A MISOGYNIST!)

The former would have had the potential to be a good movie.  The second? It was doomed before it even was finished being written.

You're dang right it was doomed during writing - frothing internet personalities saw to that.  It was completely pre-judged long before it came out, and the narrative was that it was a cartoonish mockery of a beloved franchise.  "They've (going to have) ruined our childhoods!!!"  "Social Justice run amuck!"  "It's so silly, why is this Ghostbusters movie so silly??"

And even after it failed, it was heralded as a beacon of everything that's wrong with modern feminism.  Yes, the movie was bad, but the response had *nothing* to do with the quality of the movie.

People weren't misogynist for giving this movie a pass (I certainly did), but misogynists worked very hard on hating this movie.  They outscreamed the misguided SJWs who defended it, they defined the film before it came out, and they made a lot of very serious personal threats.  And a torrent racial/sexist abuse, but meh, that's normal nowadays.  It's fine, they were "fighting back" against them SJWS!!  Who had the audacity to CALL THEM SEXIST MAYBE!

I'm not defending this film, but it sure triggered some "snowflake"-bashers.

[Egan_BW]

I saw it. It's alright. It's certainly not a bad movie outside of context.

[wierd]

@rolan

Nice baggage there.  Do you really think that a group like the old ghost busters, with a patently sexually inappropriate person like Peter Vankman, would survive in the modern Facebook age? If anything, after they saved New York from the evil demi-goddess, and later from Vigo the sorcerer (and left New York with "National Emergency-- CALL FEMA and get relief funds NAOW!" levels of property damage, and city crippling infrastructure shutdowns) that group is going to be about as popular as a home enema kit.

More than likely, the very existence of Peter Vankman would have URGED the feminist movement to promote female paranormal eliminators and ectoplasmic entity researchers.

20+ years is a long time, and that canvas is ripe to be painted on.  Just make it believable.  that's all I really ask.

[Kagus]

Do not taste the proton accelerator.

[scriver]

It was a very bad movie and I certainly wouldn't have seen it if it wasn't on television any way and all the drama wouldn't have made me curious what it was like

[Reelya]

Thing is, I don't think they had a political statement in mind when making it. The end product has little to nothing to do with it. The whole "if you hate it you're a mysogynist" angle was something that seems to have developed later, possibly when they realised their movie was an utter pile of doubleshit

Yeah, this seems right. Director Feig's entire portfolio was about doing gender-flipped comedic parodies of popular films. They went over fairly well: a gender-flipped version of The Hangover and a gender-flipped James Bond spoof film. That's his pedigree. but ... his girly spy comedy wasn't trying to pass itself off as "Jane Bond 007" and being the new official version of the Bond films which you MUST LOVE OR ELSE.

He was just applying a movie formula he'd used repeatedly before. The guy's a hack not a political agitator.

The backfire was not them having Feig do his "gender flip parody" shtick again, but it was them thinking it would be ok to brand the result as being the original franchise itself, since the original genre was "comedy" so a low-brow parody is as good as the real thing, right? This shows a base disrespect for not only the source material, but for the genre of comedy itself.

[Lord Shonus]

There was also the issue that many people reported seeing non-misogynistic comments vanishing from the trailer comment section - making it look like the criticism was only from raging manbabies. I've yet to see that confirmed, but if there's any truth at all to this then it becomes obvious that Sony was trying to ride the controversy to "force" people to pretend liking the movie.

[Reelya]

It makes about as much sense as making a chick flick about being pregnant have a male lead reprising the role of the pregnant person, "BECAUSE INCLUSION!".

Fie upon you and your small-minded dumbery!

Haha, you want some irony here? Junior was directed by Ivan Reitman of Ghostbusters fame, who is apparently going to save Ghostbusters from the same thing wierd just mentioned.

[Ulfarr]

FPS 2019 trailer how to:

1. Show max 2 seconds of shooting.
2. Cut to game critic's quote highly praising the game.
     2.5. Add inception's "Bwoong"
3. Repeat the above until you have a minute worth of trailer.
4. End by showing in the same panel all the slightly above average ratings the game got from the same critics from step 2.