Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Irrational hatred.


It's the "Irrational" part of that statement I don't get.


Rationality: The conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action.
To be irrational, means I'm acting outside my own beliefs.


My hatred toward a Ghostbusters remake... is totally rational.

__________________

Rationality: Seeing the movie BEFORE you denounce it as having no merit

The zeitgeist only influences, it doesn't dictate.

You act like political correctness wasn't a thing in 1984. All that's changed is what's considered taboo.

If the the movie draws ANY attention to that at all is entirely up to the writer, they have no predisposed compulsion to design something different by virtue of existing in a different year than the original movie. The notion's completely absurd.

That's like saying science fiction set design is predictably a product of the times since iPod-esque clean minimalism is upon us. I believe a certain recent movie with a sequel nearly 40 years old offers a pretty sharp contradiction.


It's entirely up to the creators whether to imitate the original or branch out regardless of what part of the movie they're concerned with. To that end, there's no reason Ghostbusters can't have shared a reasonably similar sense of humor to the original.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

To redefine irrationality to be so nonsensically useless as a word it doesn't apply to you is to be irrational.

Also this.

All movies should be watched before you judge them, though? Come on. Is this not Movie Forums? People don't judge movies around here all the time without having seen them?

They do and they're not called irrational.

Just own up to it -- you're bothered by Rodent's hatred just because of the women Ghostbusters thing. It's the "women" part that's making you bothered by him. You hate seeing a man so upset by a female Ghostbusters movie. It looks misogynistic. You want him to be "open minded" to the new concept. He should accept this movie at least until he's seen it, THEN he's allowed to judge. You hate him judging it already because the women thing is "supposed" to not look bad.

Let the man judge. Okay? Women -- as well as men -- should not be deemed as special and tolerated more than any other group. What if it was KIDS playing the new Ghostbusters? Should everyone be okay with that? What if the new Ghostbusters were Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Carrot Top and Lindsay Lohan? Wouldn't that be getting bashed by everyone before it came out?

"You judge him hating it already"

Your sentence was broken. I fixed it.

Oh please. Thanks for avoiding our conversation.

The 80s would have been considerably more sexist and racist than now, even if it wasn't as sexist or racist as earlier times such as 60s or 30s.

No, YOUR notion is absurd because you're expecting comedy now to be the same as 80s comedy.

A Sci-Fi in the 80s or any other decade will be quite different to now considering many things that were considered futuristic no longer are. Look at Knight Rider, for example. There are cars like that now.

You seem to think nothing changes and everything should remain the same. Perhaps if you accepted change you wouldn't be so against the movie instead of expecting the comedy to be the same as 80s comedy?

Except there is because what people found funny in the 80s and what people find funny now are completely different.

It's easy to bandy around the misogyny card...


My issue with the movie, is that it's a remake, and is being done is such a crap manner.


If this was Ghostbusters 3... a sequel, with a bunch of girls following on from the second movie, with a bit of backstory of what's happened between GB2 and GB3, then yeah, why not have a team of girls operating in say, Chicago... and are part of the Ghostbusters in-universe brand.


But no. We have a gash director, using a gimmick to sell his cash-in remake of a classic movie and has laced the film with jokes about gender and race (ie; more gimmicks).


I'd love there to be a GB3... women or men, kids... whatever...
GB3 = Yes
GB Remake Gimmick = Get to f***

What if it secretly is a sequel though and Sony have deliberately kept it quiet from Paul Feig in order to not upset him? There were rumours that - rumours that tie in with the way both trailers have started with the '30 years ago' thing.

Well, if this film does turn out to be a sequel, I shall give it a small chance. A very small chance.


I doubt it is though. I think the "30 year" thing in those trailers is just a nod to the audience. The trailers smack of remake as well.

If it isn't, why not just use your imagination and make up a way it's connected to the original?

Because the original was a work of genius, and this thing is gimmicky and crass.

Oh, okay. Why not just use your imagination, then, to connect EVERY movie with every other movie? Why not just use your imagination to convince yourself that every horrible movie you see is actually WONDERFUL?

Everything's possible IN YOUR IMAGINATION!

Seriously -- let's all just pretend that life is nothing but an episode of Muppet Babies.

I disagree. Paul Feig said he cast the funniest people he knows and it just happens to be that they are women. I fail to see how that is 'gimmicky'.

Well, why not?

Imagination is a powerful thing. We're all capable of it; we don't need a director to spoon-feed it to us.

So? Sexism and racism doesn't inform all 80s, 60s, or 30s comedy.

Let me cut you off there. "Expecting" can be interpreted in two ways.

1.) As a prediction. I have no predictions of what may or may not appear in the movie, so my expectations are non-existent in that regard.

2.) As a desire. Inevitably fans of the original movies will desire some degree of familiarity. Whether that's busting ghosts or the comedy that came with it, people will expect it. It's useless to try and dissuade them.

IT'S NOT 80S COMEDY, IT'S GHOSTBUSTERS! Ghostbusters does not personify, embody, indicate, symbolize, echo, or in any other synonym represent 80s comedy! It PURELY reflects Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd's script partly influenced by the acting cast they wrote it for.

What Ghostbusters considered comedy in the 80s is not what Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure considered comedy in the 80s.

Whether you're looking at Spaceballs, The Breakfast Club, Back to the Future, or The Naked Gun, the comedy wasn't the same and it wasn't constrained by any decade, they were all written by different people with different ideas of what's funny and those ideas are no less valid sources of comedy now than they were then.

I REALLY don't get how you don't get this. Comedy is liquid. It changes. You obviously know this, but you have a strangely compartmentalized idea of how it should work.

Not necessarily.

Some. In that instance, the vehicle could be changed to appear impressive by our modern standards, however Knight Rider could also be set during a time period where that kind of vehicle was still remarkable.

I dunno where the hell you got that idea.

WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO!?


I'm PRETTY SURE you're talking to the wrong person. I'm not against this movie in ANY CAPACITY.

I WANT TO SEE IT.

I simply disagree with your handwaving of legitimate criticism. If someone enjoys a classic series of movies with a sense of humor akin to Holy Grail, you can't just say "get with the times" when they become upset because a sequel/prequel/remake/reboot comes along resembling something on the level of Epic Movie.

Just because PewDiePie is popular doesn't mean it isn't entirely justified to be upset when a classic movie returns and sees fit to adopt that in some way.

Counter-point:


No brand of humor in this clip from I Love Lucy is anything you can't find in any average sitcom today.

Actually, they kind of do: see Some Like It Hot or even Ghostbusters where Janine is a receptionist.

People look at the original Ghostbusters with rose-tinted glasses but if it was made today it would be called a 'sexist' or 'racist' film and many wouldn't find the jokes funny (not to say that they're not - they are - but if they were written for a modern audience it wouldn't work).


Anybody who expects the comedy to be the same 30 years later is setting themselves unrealistic expectations. It's like asking for the English language to be the same as it was in the 17th century.


Ghostbusters was released in 1984, then by definition it IS an 80s comedy.


The style wasn't the same, yeah, but the jokes were in the same vein. Again, a lot of what people would today define as 'sexist' and jokes that if they were written for a modern audience wouldn't work as they did back then.

That's my argument but you seem determined it stays the same.


Except I can because they have unrealistic expectations.

...... You're saying Janine being a receptionist working for a bunch of male Ghostbusters is sexist? Is that right?

A woman can't go out and find herself a job and earn a living? A woman shouldn't work for a bunch of men?

I see why people are thinking this way, but it's ridiculous. It's stupid. It wasn't sexist. Ghostbusters was about a bunch of guys who got together as a team and started a business. Just because there wasn't a female Ghostbuster does not mean it's sexist. That's reaching - that's overreacting and making a fuss over nothing.

It should be OKAY to make a movie about guys. In the lead. It should be OKAY to make a movie about women in the lead. It should be OKAY for a woman to work for men. The fact that a woman was actually working for them is actually a progressive thing. Janine went out and got herself a job. She dealt with men and worked on their turf. They coulda had a male receptionist. But no -- they had a woman and she was part of the business. You are actually making her seem a lot less important than she actually was. Janine took phone calls, she booked clients, SHE WAS IMPORTANT. She was not some throwaway character in the corner -- she pretty much RAN THE BUSINESS! The guys were just there to go and clean up, but she had control of the business, for the most part.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the original Ghostbusters movies (1 and 2) will probably end up looking more pro-women than this reboot will accomplish. Sigourney Weaver drives those movies. I honestly feel like the Ghostbusters are basically back up characters to Sigourney Weaver. It's her story that drives those movies, her and Bill Murray. She's the one who always has the major problem that fuels the films. Maybe a lot of kids weren't playing with Dana Barrett action figures, but SHE is Ghostbusters 1 & 2.

So I hate this insane thing about how the original Ghostbusters movies were sexist. People these days are absolutely crazy.

I never said I found it sexist, I said people today would in this PC culture because society has changed and therefore so has what people find funny. It doesn't make Ghostbusters any less funny, it just means that if those jokes were done in a modern film they wouldn't work.