I noticed there wasn't a thread for this movie itself yet, and I felt it deserved it's own thread.
What I will say to kick off the thread is that I still liked it, a lot. It wasn't anywhere near perfect, but I can't and won't call it a bad movie. Where it suffered the most for me was when they let the cast go too far off script in the improv bits, which shouldn't have been there in the first place. Where it shined was I liked all the characters.
"I should have worked out more when I was alive... a lot more."
I liked it too. The plot lost something by not having the crazy mythology of the original -- blue-collarish schmucks against GOZER THE GOZERIAN! is much funnier than blue-collarish schmucks against random angry manchild. And there was some strangely conspicuous cutting, the Swiss army knife and its eventual use being the only remnants of what was clearly a much larger subplot at one point. But the cast was great, McKinnon in particular having a breakout role, and Hemsworth being simply hilarious. Not the original, but it was never going to be. Thumbs up anyway. Would see a sequel.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Just got back from seeing it. I had fun, and I want to see more stuff with the same cast.
Potentially related, one of the post credit scenes mentions:
Zuul
Also, how long have nerds been getting mad about the existence of this movie? Because I feel like either the choice of villain and the contents some of the smaller scenes were prescient, or people have been getting really mad for longer than I knew the movie existed.
Also, how long have nerds been getting mad about the existence of this movie? Because I feel like either the choice of villain and the contents some of the smaller scenes were prescient, or people have been getting really mad for longer than I knew the movie existed.
Eh... a good deal of the "controversy" surrounding the movie seems to be manufactured by Sony to a certain degree. From what I have read on the movie so far from those who like it, it seems the script is quite cognizant of everything surrounding it in real life, which makes one wonder. Honestly the "controversy" surrounding the movie is overblown to the extreme. Honestly, most people just didn't *care*, and only felt the need to comment at all because people kept insisting that a controversy existed. Hell, I didn't even know such a controversy existed until after the first trailer, at which point things really hit the fan. The entire controversy surrounding the movie just smells like a marketing ploy more than anything. Try your best to stir the pot, take a few people out of context, elevate a few fringe people to a higher relevance than they normally would have, and suddenly you have the appearance of a controversy. Some people get mad at those people, more people defend the previous, etc. Perhaps I'm just cynical on the matter, but it really does smell like a marketing exec working some strings to get "free" publicity.
That said, I'll be seeing the movie tomorrow, so I can't make any quality judgments yet. I will say I'm not exactly looking forward to it given the type of humor I've seen in the movie's trailers (Gross-out body humor and the like hasn't been something I've enjoyed for a decade), and I'm not a big fan of either Leslie Jones or Melissa McCarthy in general. Leslie Jones in particular follows the current "school" of SNL acting that is just acting like yourself knocked up to 11, which is just annoying to me. Both Kristen Bell and Kate McKinnon are hilarious actresses, though, so there is that.
The one thing I know I'm not going to like, however, is the over-saturization of CGI in scenes. It's the same reason I heavily disliked Jurassic World (And still can't believe it got rave reviews). Everything is bright and neon and plastic-like. It's just distracting and annoying, and lacks any form of subtlety, and it often doesn't work at all. So I feel like that I may not like the movie on this basis alone, but we'll see.
See, I've seen nerd culture spontaneously erupt in loud misogyny something like six times over the last few years, so I don't know why Sony would need to fake a controversy when one is almost guaranteed to show up. I was just wondering how long people have been yelling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
See, I've seen nerd culture spontaneously erupt in loud misogyny something like six times over the last few years, so I don't know why Sony would need to fake a controversy when one is almost guaranteed to show up. I was just wondering how long people have been yelling.
It wasn' so much Sony faking a controversy as much as it was them intentionally playing into a foreseeable series of events (Namely that they knew there was going to be a subset of people who would be annoyed at the concept of an all-female Ghostbusters conceptually). They knew there would be some form of outcry from some group or another. The controversy wasn't so much faked as it was manufactured to appear far larger than it really was, as well as create a truly epic controversy. Their early marketing of the film is very peculiar honestly, and almost specifically tailored to strike a chord in some people. It's not a fake controversy, but instead one where the flames were intentionally stoked hotter than they normally would have been.
Call me cynical, but I don't have faith in Sony not to abuse gender politics for marketing purposes. A good many companies have done far, far worse than drag important social issues through the mud for marketing purposes. I would not doubt in the least that Sony would actively do something that was ultimately destructive towards social issues, as I feel the entirety of the Ghostbusters controversy has been (As nobody is particularly innocent in the matter). This entire mess just wreaks of marketing ploys and pulling at people's emotions from all sides to get some really good publicity for the film.
As for when it started, I think you could probably find the beginnings of it when the cast was announced, and it got really bad when the trailer came out. Someone else who paid attention to the whole thing could probably give better details, but I vaguely remember a few people harrumphing about an all-female cast in Ghostbusters. That said, I have found a scant few article from March of last years discussing the controversy. It seems it didn't get nearly as heated, however, until the first trailer rolled out. And then the world just kind of blew up with the trailer. It's always been around, basically, but was pretty muted for most of it.
Alright, so I watched the movie; it faired about as well as expected. Not terrible, but honestly not particularly good either. I would say it was a disappointment, but with the previous installments of "Reboot my childhood" being pretty disappointing and overall lacking any soul (See: Transformers; Jurassic World; TMNT) it's pretty hard for me to be disappointed these days. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Now, I will say it wasn't a complete travesty as some would. There were certainly some things I did like and enjoy about the film a great deal. However, there were some serious issues with the movie overall.
[spoiler= The Surprising]
Melissa McCarthy thoroughly surprised me. I'm not a big McCarthy fan in general, however she really shined in this film as perhaps the most fleshed out character with the most nuance to her. Her timing, reaction, and delivery were exceptionally strong through out the film. She was hardly as one-note as I've come to expect, and she was legitimately funny through out.[/spoiler][/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=The Good]
The cast was quite fanstastic all around, to be honest. They obviously poured a lot of soul and heart into their scenes, and the overall chemistry was there. Leslie Jones was a bit "meh", overall, but she picked up in the middle and had some pretty funny scenes to her. Wiig was honestly a bit disappointing at times, though still did fine. Her character just felt wooden, however I'll get into why I feel this way later. She did a fine job with the role, I just feel they didn't give her anything to work with. Kate McKinnen also did a fantastic job that I feel was only hampered by things out of her hands. I would have liked to see her character have more development, but you can't get it all. Hemsworth was also a pretty solid role overall.
As for the move itself, there were two stand-out scenes that I remember, and they were coincidentally the opening scene and the various scenes in the credits. The opening hit all the right notes to be the perfect set up to what you would want out of the movie; equally the mid-credits scenes highlighting the various characters was just fantastic, and really allowed the character's personality to shine and bounce off one another.
Also, I have to say that Annie Pot's cameo was my favorite; then again Janine was one of my favorite characters in the original films, and in the cartoon as well (She's a tie with Egon).
[/spoiler]
The bad:
[spoiler=The Bad]
Now onto the bad, and there is a lot I could talk about on this subject.
First, whoever handled the opening credits sequence needs to be fired. Immediately. Having such an amazing opening scene be followed by such an atrociously lame title sequence is just downright criminal. The entire sequence felt like it was building up to something awesome, and you are treated with the word "Ghostbusters" in normal font over the city. And the music dies out. And nothing else happens. I mean good lord, what the hell guys? That really killed a lot of the momentum the movie had off of the opening scene.
One of the biggest issues I had with the entire movie was the script. Many scenes just felt completely forced and unintentionally awkward in how it was handled. Many of the jokes just fell flat and were poorly thought-out whose punch-line was more of an eye-roll than a laugh. The characters weren't properly fleshed out in the script, which is a damn shame because the actresses did a damn fine job with what they had available to them.
Perhaps the biggest problem, however, was that the movie changed in tone rather rapidly. At times it was trying to be a bit dramatic, at others a bit suspenseful, at others it was a comedy, and others it was an action movie. It was just a cluttered mess without a clear identity. Second, the 'action' in the movie was just too much. It's the same sort of nonsense that ripped me out of Jurassic World. One of the biggest reasons why the original movie was so great is because it was four somewhat regular doofus's playing off one another. It didn't focus on the action, as that would have distracted from the fantastic cast. That is what I feel what went wrong here in many ways; the "action" in the movie (Particularly the last couple fight scenes) just drew attention away from what could have been a pretty stellar character-driven comedy.
Next, I have a serious problem with how "noisy" the film is. There is background generic action music far too often, and it is far too distracting from the events going on. The CG, when it is used, is bright and distracting, and it's often times very difficult to sort out what is going on. Good chunks of the movie were ruined by unnecessary sensory-bombardment that made enjoying the rest of the film a chore for me. Not to harp to much on the subject, but this is the exact same problem I have with all recent adaptions of early films. It's just so much random background noise that it's hard to pay attention to the what's actually going on.
Finally, there was a serious problem I feel with the editing of the movie. A good many scenes were just ruined by poor pacing of scenes. There were a good number of these where there was a joke in the scene, it was actually funny, but not a single person in the theater picked up on the fact that there was a joke to laugh at. Much of how the movie was put together just felt... off. Some scenes didn't have any lead-up to them which made them feel disjointed .The rock concert is a great example; the concert stops as they catch the ghost, with the audience and band in shock, the very next cut is to the band in the middle of a song and the Ghostbusters rocking out with them. While the scene had some hilarious parts to it, it was just a very odd way to cut scenes together. Other scenes had cuts that just ended abruptly and others drug on. It feels like much of what was left in the movie should been on the cutting room floor, and that there was a lot not in the movie that should have been. Equally, it feels like post-production on the film was rather lazy, with the movie put together rather haphazardly. This is a complete shame, because the movie had a lot of potential in these areas.
[/spoiler]
So what are my final feelings on the film? Well, it was kind of meh, and I feel didn't do the actresses justice. Most of the major flaws in the film are honestly editing and script problems more than anything. It's a disappointing entry not from McCarthy, Wiig, McKinnon, or even Jones, but rather for the production team involved with the film who seem to have half-assed it as well as made some disappointing production decisions (In my personal opinion). I personally didn't care much for the film at all, and thought it was pretty mediocre at best. Still, there's enough to enjoy where I wouldn't call it bad, and wouldn't knock people for actively liking it. I didn't waste my time, honestly, but I also won't be spending much more time thinking about it or watching it again. It is unfortunately forgettable.
Call me cynical, but I don't have faith in Sony not to abuse gender politics for marketing purposes. A good many companies have done far, far worse than drag important social issues through the mud for marketing purposes. I would not doubt in the least that Sony would actively do something that was ultimately destructive towards social issues, as I feel the entirety of the Ghostbusters controversy has been (As nobody is particularly innocent in the matter). This entire mess just wreaks of marketing ploys and pulling at people's emotions from all sides to get some really good publicity for the film.
As for when it started, I think you could probably find the beginnings of it when the cast was announced, and it got really bad when the trailer came out. Someone else who paid attention to the whole thing could probably give better details, but I vaguely remember a few people harrumphing about an all-female cast in Ghostbusters. That said, I have found a scant few article from March of last years discussing the controversy. It seems it didn't get nearly as heated, however, until the first trailer rolled out. And then the world just kind of blew up with the trailer. It's always been around, basically, but was pretty muted for most of it.
I would also ask anyone who looks at the """""controversy""""" examine who is talking about it and where. Always heavily featured in the interviews of people involved in the project (ones I saw at least), oft mentioned by critics. I saw tons of dislikes on the trailer (which I thought was terrible) but not much hate on women anywhere, really.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
Darn. I liked the cast, was hoping for a sequel.
What's the odds Sony will take the lesson "don't let women star in stuff"? Because that would be depressing.
EDIT: There's already threads on Reddit talking about SJWs getting BTFO and stuff from the same guys who though Fury Road would suck because of Furiosa, so that's sad too.
I love the new ghostbusters. I think it's the best movie released this year. I didn't see the movie and propably won't torrent it either but all the drama surrounding the movie has been very entertaining. Paul Feig being a massive female supremacist in the public, (that Amy producer from sony) crucifying her career, "journalists" being "journalists"...
Can someone who has seen it tell me what the "modern zeitgeist" is supposed to be that this movie allegedly portrays. Other than just switching the sex of the characters?
With a $225 million dollar budget, they were set up for a very lukewarm success at best to begin with. That said, you can bet dollars to donoughts that this 70 million dollar loss at the box officer will more than be made up for in merchandising. At least that's what they're going to try, I imagine. If the movie is a flop, but they make a boatload in royalties and merchandise then it'll get a second movie.
I should have made a bet on this, because similar stuff has happened repeatedly over the last few years: Leslie Jones's personal site got hacked and a bunch of her pictures are being circulated on /pol/. [link] Also, a bunch of the professional ********s who were going after her earlier are celebrating but they don't deserve the extra attention so I won't link them.
Man, Milo is a professional ********. ******* with "teh sjws" is how he gets paid (when he's not stealing charity donations or being hired by Donald Trump). People who disengage get articles written about them in order to stir up the mob even more, because the point of what he does is to get people who don't fit the alt-right's mold to shut up and stay gone after they shut up.
He, and others he works with, have been pulling this kind of ***** for years.
I should have made a bet on this, because similar stuff has happened repeatedly over the last few years: Leslie Jones's personal site got hacked and a bunch of her pictures are being circulated on /pol/. [link] Also, a bunch of the professional ********s who were going after her earlier are celebrating but they don't deserve the extra attention so I won't link them.
This is tough for me. Obviously I think that whomever is responsible for this is deplorable and condemn the act. However, I have to imagine this has somehow stemmed from how her row with Milo was handled, which I don't think she's exactly blameless in. She may not have started it, but she definitely chose to escalate it. In some ways, it reminds me of the HBGary incident. When you find yourself in the middle of controversy (regardless of how you got there), the worst possible thing you can do is escalate the situation, because eventually the wrong people are going to get pissed off enough and then this sort of ***** inevitably happens.
No. No no no no no. She's not to blame.
When a mugger comes at you with a knife, and you defend yourself, you are ******* blameless.
With troll ********s like milo, if you don't defend yourself, they win. (sometimes if you do they also win, but defending yourself is *still* entirely reasonable.)
Block, report, ignore works okay for one guy calling you a wanker to get you riled up in allchat, because their motivation is cheap lulz and maybe a tilt in a single game.
It's pretty ******* ***** at actually stopping dedicated abuse, because if it's coming from a minor celebrity and darling of the alt-right and an army of his obsessive fans, then they aren't abusing the target to get a response from them, but because they hate the fact that women and black people exist. The point isn't cheap lulz, it's silencing successful people who don't fit the alt-right's desired mold.
That's why for the last few years the same names keep showing up when "random trolls" attack "random victims", and why you see so many troll swarms start after a trigger from a celebrity of the alt-right. This ***** isn't random, and hasn't been for years: it's targeted.
Milo's (and others like him) have made a career out of this ***** in a way that allows them maximum profit with minimum liability: as an inciter, they've always got the ability to claim they didn't mean for any bad things to happen, people just mysteriously come out of the woodwork to go after individuals they've designated shortly after they've designated them.
This history of incitement is one of the reasons Milo got permabanned from Twitter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Man this kind of alt-right campaign has been going on for at least three years (Gamergate is when I started paying attention to the Alt-Right) in a pretty obvious and repetitive pattern, so idk why you're saying I'm making wild assumptions.
As far as the specific case is concerned, if all he said was "I dislike Ghostbusters" and then his fans went nuts, I wouldn't be saying it was his fault. What he did included retweeting fake and extremely racist tweets supposedly from Jones, retweeting examples of the abuse she was getting, and writing multiple articles on Breitbart calling her hideous and sad.
So he got banned for incitement of abuse.
I mean, while we're talking about Milo's morals, the guy has been trying [link] [second link, more charitable to Yiannopoulos] to get Donald Trump more support from Neo-Nazis.
I understand you like him, but fascism is completely incompatible with the concept of justice.
What I will say to kick off the thread is that I still liked it, a lot. It wasn't anywhere near perfect, but I can't and won't call it a bad movie. Where it suffered the most for me was when they let the cast go too far off script in the improv bits, which shouldn't have been there in the first place. Where it shined was I liked all the characters.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Potentially related, one of the post credit scenes mentions:
Also, how long have nerds been getting mad about the existence of this movie? Because I feel like either the choice of villain and the contents some of the smaller scenes were prescient, or people have been getting really mad for longer than I knew the movie existed.
Art is life itself.
Eh... a good deal of the "controversy" surrounding the movie seems to be manufactured by Sony to a certain degree. From what I have read on the movie so far from those who like it, it seems the script is quite cognizant of everything surrounding it in real life, which makes one wonder. Honestly the "controversy" surrounding the movie is overblown to the extreme. Honestly, most people just didn't *care*, and only felt the need to comment at all because people kept insisting that a controversy existed. Hell, I didn't even know such a controversy existed until after the first trailer, at which point things really hit the fan. The entire controversy surrounding the movie just smells like a marketing ploy more than anything. Try your best to stir the pot, take a few people out of context, elevate a few fringe people to a higher relevance than they normally would have, and suddenly you have the appearance of a controversy. Some people get mad at those people, more people defend the previous, etc. Perhaps I'm just cynical on the matter, but it really does smell like a marketing exec working some strings to get "free" publicity.
That said, I'll be seeing the movie tomorrow, so I can't make any quality judgments yet. I will say I'm not exactly looking forward to it given the type of humor I've seen in the movie's trailers (Gross-out body humor and the like hasn't been something I've enjoyed for a decade), and I'm not a big fan of either Leslie Jones or Melissa McCarthy in general. Leslie Jones in particular follows the current "school" of SNL acting that is just acting like yourself knocked up to 11, which is just annoying to me. Both Kristen Bell and Kate McKinnon are hilarious actresses, though, so there is that.
The one thing I know I'm not going to like, however, is the over-saturization of CGI in scenes. It's the same reason I heavily disliked Jurassic World (And still can't believe it got rave reviews). Everything is bright and neon and plastic-like. It's just distracting and annoying, and lacks any form of subtlety, and it often doesn't work at all. So I feel like that I may not like the movie on this basis alone, but we'll see.
Art is life itself.
It wasn' so much Sony faking a controversy as much as it was them intentionally playing into a foreseeable series of events (Namely that they knew there was going to be a subset of people who would be annoyed at the concept of an all-female Ghostbusters conceptually). They knew there would be some form of outcry from some group or another. The controversy wasn't so much faked as it was manufactured to appear far larger than it really was, as well as create a truly epic controversy. Their early marketing of the film is very peculiar honestly, and almost specifically tailored to strike a chord in some people. It's not a fake controversy, but instead one where the flames were intentionally stoked hotter than they normally would have been.
Call me cynical, but I don't have faith in Sony not to abuse gender politics for marketing purposes. A good many companies have done far, far worse than drag important social issues through the mud for marketing purposes. I would not doubt in the least that Sony would actively do something that was ultimately destructive towards social issues, as I feel the entirety of the Ghostbusters controversy has been (As nobody is particularly innocent in the matter). This entire mess just wreaks of marketing ploys and pulling at people's emotions from all sides to get some really good publicity for the film.
As for when it started, I think you could probably find the beginnings of it when the cast was announced, and it got really bad when the trailer came out. Someone else who paid attention to the whole thing could probably give better details, but I vaguely remember a few people harrumphing about an all-female cast in Ghostbusters. That said, I have found a scant few article from March of last years discussing the controversy. It seems it didn't get nearly as heated, however, until the first trailer rolled out. And then the world just kind of blew up with the trailer. It's always been around, basically, but was pretty muted for most of it.
[spoiler= The Surprising]
Melissa McCarthy thoroughly surprised me. I'm not a big McCarthy fan in general, however she really shined in this film as perhaps the most fleshed out character with the most nuance to her. Her timing, reaction, and delivery were exceptionally strong through out the film. She was hardly as one-note as I've come to expect, and she was legitimately funny through out.[/spoiler][/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
[spoiler=The Good]
The cast was quite fanstastic all around, to be honest. They obviously poured a lot of soul and heart into their scenes, and the overall chemistry was there. Leslie Jones was a bit "meh", overall, but she picked up in the middle and had some pretty funny scenes to her. Wiig was honestly a bit disappointing at times, though still did fine. Her character just felt wooden, however I'll get into why I feel this way later. She did a fine job with the role, I just feel they didn't give her anything to work with. Kate McKinnen also did a fantastic job that I feel was only hampered by things out of her hands. I would have liked to see her character have more development, but you can't get it all. Hemsworth was also a pretty solid role overall.
As for the move itself, there were two stand-out scenes that I remember, and they were coincidentally the opening scene and the various scenes in the credits. The opening hit all the right notes to be the perfect set up to what you would want out of the movie; equally the mid-credits scenes highlighting the various characters was just fantastic, and really allowed the character's personality to shine and bounce off one another.
Also, I have to say that Annie Pot's cameo was my favorite; then again Janine was one of my favorite characters in the original films, and in the cartoon as well (She's a tie with Egon).
[/spoiler]
The bad:
[spoiler=The Bad]
Now onto the bad, and there is a lot I could talk about on this subject.
First, whoever handled the opening credits sequence needs to be fired. Immediately. Having such an amazing opening scene be followed by such an atrociously lame title sequence is just downright criminal. The entire sequence felt like it was building up to something awesome, and you are treated with the word "Ghostbusters" in normal font over the city. And the music dies out. And nothing else happens. I mean good lord, what the hell guys? That really killed a lot of the momentum the movie had off of the opening scene.
One of the biggest issues I had with the entire movie was the script. Many scenes just felt completely forced and unintentionally awkward in how it was handled. Many of the jokes just fell flat and were poorly thought-out whose punch-line was more of an eye-roll than a laugh. The characters weren't properly fleshed out in the script, which is a damn shame because the actresses did a damn fine job with what they had available to them.
Perhaps the biggest problem, however, was that the movie changed in tone rather rapidly. At times it was trying to be a bit dramatic, at others a bit suspenseful, at others it was a comedy, and others it was an action movie. It was just a cluttered mess without a clear identity. Second, the 'action' in the movie was just too much. It's the same sort of nonsense that ripped me out of Jurassic World. One of the biggest reasons why the original movie was so great is because it was four somewhat regular doofus's playing off one another. It didn't focus on the action, as that would have distracted from the fantastic cast. That is what I feel what went wrong here in many ways; the "action" in the movie (Particularly the last couple fight scenes) just drew attention away from what could have been a pretty stellar character-driven comedy.
Next, I have a serious problem with how "noisy" the film is. There is background generic action music far too often, and it is far too distracting from the events going on. The CG, when it is used, is bright and distracting, and it's often times very difficult to sort out what is going on. Good chunks of the movie were ruined by unnecessary sensory-bombardment that made enjoying the rest of the film a chore for me. Not to harp to much on the subject, but this is the exact same problem I have with all recent adaptions of early films. It's just so much random background noise that it's hard to pay attention to the what's actually going on.
Finally, there was a serious problem I feel with the editing of the movie. A good many scenes were just ruined by poor pacing of scenes. There were a good number of these where there was a joke in the scene, it was actually funny, but not a single person in the theater picked up on the fact that there was a joke to laugh at. Much of how the movie was put together just felt... off. Some scenes didn't have any lead-up to them which made them feel disjointed .The rock concert is a great example; the concert stops as they catch the ghost, with the audience and band in shock, the very next cut is to the band in the middle of a song and the Ghostbusters rocking out with them. While the scene had some hilarious parts to it, it was just a very odd way to cut scenes together. Other scenes had cuts that just ended abruptly and others drug on. It feels like much of what was left in the movie should been on the cutting room floor, and that there was a lot not in the movie that should have been. Equally, it feels like post-production on the film was rather lazy, with the movie put together rather haphazardly. This is a complete shame, because the movie had a lot of potential in these areas.
[/spoiler]
So what are my final feelings on the film? Well, it was kind of meh, and I feel didn't do the actresses justice. Most of the major flaws in the film are honestly editing and script problems more than anything. It's a disappointing entry not from McCarthy, Wiig, McKinnon, or even Jones, but rather for the production team involved with the film who seem to have half-assed it as well as made some disappointing production decisions (In my personal opinion). I personally didn't care much for the film at all, and thought it was pretty mediocre at best. Still, there's enough to enjoy where I wouldn't call it bad, and wouldn't knock people for actively liking it. I didn't waste my time, honestly, but I also won't be spending much more time thinking about it or watching it again. It is unfortunately forgettable.
I would also ask anyone who looks at the """""controversy""""" examine who is talking about it and where. Always heavily featured in the interviews of people involved in the project (ones I saw at least), oft mentioned by critics. I saw tons of dislikes on the trailer (which I thought was terrible) but not much hate on women anywhere, really.
What's the odds Sony will take the lesson "don't let women star in stuff"? Because that would be depressing.
EDIT: There's already threads on Reddit talking about SJWs getting BTFO and stuff from the same guys who though Fury Road would suck because of Furiosa, so that's sad too.
Art is life itself.
I am entertained.
Can someone who has seen it tell me what the "modern zeitgeist" is supposed to be that this movie allegedly portrays. Other than just switching the sex of the characters?
With a $225 million dollar budget, they were set up for a very lukewarm success at best to begin with. That said, you can bet dollars to donoughts that this 70 million dollar loss at the box officer will more than be made up for in merchandising. At least that's what they're going to try, I imagine. If the movie is a flop, but they make a boatload in royalties and merchandise then it'll get a second movie.
Art is life itself.
He, and others he works with, have been pulling this kind of ***** for years.
Art is life itself.
No. No no no no no. She's not to blame.
When a mugger comes at you with a knife, and you defend yourself, you are ******* blameless.
With troll ********s like milo, if you don't defend yourself, they win. (sometimes if you do they also win, but defending yourself is *still* entirely reasonable.)
Block, report, ignore works okay for one guy calling you a wanker to get you riled up in allchat, because their motivation is cheap lulz and maybe a tilt in a single game.
It's pretty ******* ***** at actually stopping dedicated abuse, because if it's coming from a minor celebrity and darling of the alt-right and an army of his obsessive fans, then they aren't abusing the target to get a response from them, but because they hate the fact that women and black people exist. The point isn't cheap lulz, it's silencing successful people who don't fit the alt-right's desired mold.
That's why for the last few years the same names keep showing up when "random trolls" attack "random victims", and why you see so many troll swarms start after a trigger from a celebrity of the alt-right. This ***** isn't random, and hasn't been for years: it's targeted.
Milo's (and others like him) have made a career out of this ***** in a way that allows them maximum profit with minimum liability: as an inciter, they've always got the ability to claim they didn't mean for any bad things to happen, people just mysteriously come out of the woodwork to go after individuals they've designated shortly after they've designated them.
This history of incitement is one of the reasons Milo got permabanned from Twitter.
Art is life itself.
As far as the specific case is concerned, if all he said was "I dislike Ghostbusters" and then his fans went nuts, I wouldn't be saying it was his fault. What he did included retweeting fake and extremely racist tweets supposedly from Jones, retweeting examples of the abuse she was getting, and writing multiple articles on Breitbart calling her hideous and sad.
So he got banned for incitement of abuse.
I mean, while we're talking about Milo's morals, the guy has been trying [link] [second link, more charitable to Yiannopoulos] to get Donald Trump more support from Neo-Nazis.
I understand you like him, but fascism is completely incompatible with the concept of justice.
Art is life itself.