Recommended Posts

I still say that I have absolutely no issue with this.  It has absolutely no bearing on my enjoyment of the original and more or less than the sub-par sequel did.  I can still watch Ghostbusters and enjoy it.

 

I will go see this, as a separate film and gonna say probably quite enjoy it.

 

No jimmies being ruffled!

I don't see the point of altering franchises with established storylines, lore, and characters and forcing women into them for the sake of fulfilling progressives and their idiotic obsession with "diversity" (code for "we hate straight white men and want them out of everything"). Retconning stories and altering them just makes films boring, predictable, and cheap.

I personally have no problem with the inclusion of women in films, in fact women have been appearing in films for decades. But at least do the actresses the decency of an original story.

On 14/02/2016 at 11:53 PM, Javik said:

I don't see the point of altering franchises with established storylines, lore, and characters and forcing women into them for the sake of fulfilling progressives and their idiotic obsession with "diversity" (code for "we hate straight white men and want them out of everything"). Retconning stories and altering them just makes films boring, predictable, and cheap.

I personally have no problem with the inclusion of women in films, in fact women have been appearing in films for decades. But at least do the actresses the decency of an original story.

yeah rebooting a classic franchise that didn't need rebooting sounds like it's destined to fail or at least flop at the box office sales.

 

they should've just carried on with gb3 and used some cgi to do a egon ghost in the plot as a tribute, surely they could've got someone to voice him.

 

to me this movie sounds bad, but like you, i have no issue with women in movies, but the cast is really a bad choice.

  • 2 weeks later...
6 minutes ago, Innervisions33 said:

Looks ok to me.  So is this still not a sequel?  While the footage doesn't make it seem like it, the intro does.  I'm confused.

I have no idea either. I quite enjoyed the trailer after 20+ viewings. OH! and there's more! BTS stuff!

 

 

 

The trailer gives me me very mixed feelings.

 

one one hand, the ghosts look great, BUT that's also the problem.  They look too good, in a very uncharacteristic statement from me, There's too much CGI and the CGI is too good. it doesn't look like ghostbusters. 

 

The old classic animatronic and film trick ghosts had a feel to them that made them seem "realistic" in their way. these just look like really awesome CGI. and not the nice gritty real ghosts of ghostbusters. 

 

on top of that. the trailer gives the whole story away, and the whole story is basically a line by line retelling of the original movie. down to the token black "guy" and "his" role. 

 

They simply replaced the characters with women and placed it 30 years in the future and apparently everyone forgot that ghosts even existed in those 30 years... smh.... why... 

 

I'll watch, it. but it's definitely not going to be a classic. 

  • Like 1
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • If you don't care to read what I said, then you prove my point. Maybe written media is beyond your attention span. Titles are not summaries my friend.
    • Nobody asked... in fact, I said "I don't care about political leanings"  
    • TLDR. Here is a far better title (just a basic example): Windows 11 26H2 to allow disabling Web search results
    • Restore will get my vote, only if to see if things are any different, doubt it though but Labour and Conservatives too out of touch and same thing over and over and over…, Lib Dem who?
    • There is nothing wrong with this title. You have completely missed the plot when it comes to "clickbait." The issue was never that a title tries to entice you to click, that is how titles have worked for over 100 years. The issue is when the title subverts expectations, getting you to click expecting something that isn't there. The classic clickbait example is "Boyfriend caught cheating, what happens next will shock you," then what happened next is the girlfriend was upset...which is probably the least shocking outcome imaginable. If sounds like what you want is for the titles to be a collection of 10-word summaries that you can skim, get the just of the story, and only click if you want more details. That is not, never has been, and never will be what titles are. You can go all the way back to print newspapers during the great depression and see the same thing. The newspaper was locked in a vending machine, all you can see is the headline, you choose to put in 5¢ to buy the paper and read the rest if you want. Those headlines were written in a way to sell the paper, not just to provide a summery. Here are two actual headlines from that time, "Wall Street Lays an Egg," or "Stocks Hit Bottom?" Maybe you'd say something like "it was wrong then and it's still wrong now." Okay, fine opinion to have, but it isn't like Neowin is doing something unjurnalistic, they are just following the age-old standards for written media.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      tuben earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      mnsgroup earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      525
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      199
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      94
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      82
    5. 5
      neufuse
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!