[Malankazooie]

Watched The Predator. The recent one that came out last year I think.

Don't even consider watching it, not even a on a whim. It is terrible. The worst movie I've seen in quite some time, and I've had a run of stinkers of late. If there is anything, maybe, that can be pulled from this garbage heap that is positive, is that some of the violent deaths were amusing. But the thing is, the violence seemed out of place, incongruous with the movie. It just seemed odd throughout. I checked the Rotten Tomatoes score of The Predator and it's in the low 30% range, and that's about right. I would probably score it lower myself. There is a 'get to the choppers' line worked into the movie, and yes, that is plural 'choppers' and it's not the kind of choppers you're thinking of. Horrible.

[QuickTidal]

FUCK. YES.

Note to Sony: THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE WANTED FROM THE BEGINNING. Not a goofy Feig-reboot...but a long sequel to the original films that honours them, but blazes it's own path.

Casting the OG GB's in this in smaller parts is also great (Yes, that's Venkman's voice narrating).

I am so in! This movie is going to make bank.



EDIT: Noticed by others: The mine in the trailer is called Shandor's Mine. This easter egg links this HARD to the original film...and let's not kid ourselves, they are honouring Harold Ramis...because I think Stranger Things kid is Egon's grandkid, because he was the only one nuts enough to continue the GB work after the threat was removed in the 80's.

Anyways, from GHOSTBUSTERS 1:

The architect's name was Ivo Shandor. I found it in Tobin's Spirit Guide. He was also a doctor. Performed a lot of unnecessary surgery. And then in 1920 he started a secret society.- Egon Spengler

Let me guess. Gozer Worshipers.- Peter Venkman

Right. After the First World War, Shandor decided that society was too sick to survive And he wasn't alone. he had close to a thousand followers when he died. They conducted rituals up on the roof, bizarre rituals intended to bring about the end of the world, and now it looks like it may actually happen! - Egon Spengler

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 09 December 2019 - 04:23 PM

[Abyss]

Malankazooie, on 09 December 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

Watched The Predator. The recent one that came out last year I think.

Don't even consider watching it, not even a on a whim. It is terrible. The worst movie I've seen in quite some time, and I've had a run of stinkers of late. If there is anything, maybe, that can be pulled from this garbage heap that is positive, is that some of the violent deaths were amusing. But the thing is, the violence seemed out of place, incongruous with the movie. It just seemed odd throughout. I checked the Rotten Tomatoes score of The Predator and it's in the low 30% range, and that's about right. I would probably score it lower myself. There is a 'get to the choppers' line worked into the movie, and yes, that is plural 'choppers' and it's not the kind of choppers you're thinking of. Horrible.

I wish they would just stop trying.

They won't, i know, because money, but FFS every. single. attempt. ...at a new PREDATOR (or ALIENS or even AVP) flic has just been badworsebad since (ALIENS in 1986 and) PRED 2 in 1990.

So MANY bad movies, even bombs as the dollars go, yet they keep trying. And i don't think anyone sets out to make a bad movie but dear godses some of these have been BAD.

[Primateus]

Malankazooie, on 09 December 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

Watched The Predator. The recent one that came out last year I think.

Don't even consider watching it, not even a on a whim. It is terrible. The worst movie I've seen in quite some time, and I've had a run of stinkers of late. If there is anything, maybe, that can be pulled from this garbage heap that is positive, is that some of the violent deaths were amusing. But the thing is, the violence seemed out of place, incongruous with the movie. It just seemed odd throughout. I checked the Rotten Tomatoes score of The Predator and it's in the low 30% range, and that's about right. I would probably score it lower myself. There is a 'get to the choppers' line worked into the movie, and yes, that is plural 'choppers' and it's not the kind of choppers you're thinking of. Horrible.

It is in fact quite horrible, yes. I remember seeing it and just sitting there thinking; "I paid money to see this garbage?!"

I still have trouble completely understanding how unbelievably horribly bad it was.

[Primateus]

Abyss, on 09 December 2019 - 04:32 PM, said:

Malankazooie, on 09 December 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

Watched The Predator. The recent one that came out last year I think.

Don't even consider watching it, not even a on a whim. It is terrible. The worst movie I've seen in quite some time, and I've had a run of stinkers of late. If there is anything, maybe, that can be pulled from this garbage heap that is positive, is that some of the violent deaths were amusing. But the thing is, the violence seemed out of place, incongruous with the movie. It just seemed odd throughout. I checked the Rotten Tomatoes score of The Predator and it's in the low 30% range, and that's about right. I would probably score it lower myself. There is a 'get to the choppers' line worked into the movie, and yes, that is plural 'choppers' and it's not the kind of choppers you're thinking of. Horrible.

I wish they would just stop trying.

They won't, i know, because money, but FFS every. single. attempt. ...at a new PREDATOR (or ALIENS or even AVP) flic has just been badworsebad since (ALIENS in 1986 and) PRED 2 in 1990.

So MANY bad movies, even bombs as the dollars go, yet they keep trying. And i don't think anyone sets out to make a bad movie but dear godses some of these have been BAD.

I think that's a little unfair. The movie Predators from 2010, while not exactly great cinema, was halfway decent enough. Rest is garbage though.

[Tsundoku]

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

FUCK. YES.

Note to Sony: THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE WANTED FROM THE BEGINNING. Not a goofy Feig-reboot...but a long sequel to the original films that honours them, but blazes it's own path.

Casting the OG GB's in this in smaller parts is also great (Yes, that's Venkman's voice narrating).

I am so in! This movie is going to make bank.



EDIT: Noticed by others: The mine in the trailer is called Shandor's Mine. This easter egg links this HARD to the original film...and let's not kid ourselves, they are honouring Harold Ramis...because I think Stranger Things kid is Egon's grandkid, because he was the only one nuts enough to continue the GB work after the threat was removed in the 80's.

Anyways, from GHOSTBUSTERS 1:

The architect's name was Ivo Shandor. I found it in Tobin's Spirit Guide. He was also a doctor. Performed a lot of unnecessary surgery. And then in 1920 he started a secret society.- Egon Spengler

Let me guess. Gozer Worshipers.- Peter Venkman

Right. After the First World War, Shandor decided that society was too sick to survive And he wasn't alone. he had close to a thousand followers when he died. They conducted rituals up on the roof, bizarre rituals intended to bring about the end of the world, and now it looks like it may actually happen! - Egon Spengler

Awwwwwwwww yeaaaaaahhhhhhh

[polishgenius]

I dunno about that Ghostbusters trailer. There was like one joke in it. The original wasn't a kid/teenage adventure movie. I hope I'm wrong but it feels like this one owes as much to the post-Stranger-Things trend as to the actual original film and I'm worried we're gonna end up with Super 8 with a flashy title.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

FUCK. YES.

Note to Sony: THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE WANTED FROM THE BEGINNING. Not a goofy Feig-reboot...but a long sequel to the original films that honours them, but blazes it's own path.

Casting the OG GB's in this in smaller parts is also great (Yes, that's Venkman's voice narrating).

I am so in! This movie is going to make bank....

I want to believe, but i think there is more nostalgia than concept at work, and people tend to forget that GHOSTBUSTERS 2 wasn't actually that good.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 09 December 2019 - 05:39 PM, said:

I dunno about that Ghostbusters trailer. There was like one joke in it. The original wasn't a kid/teenage adventure movie. I hope I'm wrong but it feels like this one owes as much to the post-Stranger-Things trend as to the actual original film and I'm worried we're gonna end up with Super 8 with a flashy title.

1. The original film was a Supernatural thriller...which happened to star some very funny people, who brought their funny to the role. It is not a comedy, nor is it structured as one. And if you go and watch the original trailer it had one joke in it too, while deadly serious shit is going down. So many people remember GB as a comedy, and it simply isn't. It's got lots of comedic elements in it, but it's a serious film with a serious tone throughout...and if you remove all the supernatural and thriller/horror elements, it would not work. That's the balance that the 2016 version completely failed to strike...it basically thought "It's a comedy with ghosts in!"....which simply is the worst reading of the 1984 film and Paul Fieg was in way over his head when he assumed that's what it was.

2. This is a long sequel to the original films, so moving the pylons to "kid-adventure movie" is inherently smart since they don't want to re-hash the originals and get themselves into a "The Force Awakens" rehash tight spot. It also allows you to grown them and change up the status quo of what GB IS as a franchise. That's smart too.

3. The most watched thing amongst youth right now, or recently was....ding ding ding....STRANGER THINGS. 80's vibe, teens/tweens VS supernatural Big Bad. As such, this is a smart play to get not just those of us who grew up on these flicks into the theatre, but the demographic that is most important, youth.

4. Tying it to the first movie (Ivo Shandor/Gozer) and the video game should be the call sign for the fact that this isn't just going to be "Super 8 with a flashy title", because it means that Jason had his father Ivan's help in long sequeliszing his films, diving into one of the best aspects about the originals. That Ray and Egon were DEEP into gothic/Supernatural lore and that was a solid backbone that the originals were set against. As such, knowing that Egon clearly kept working to that end before he died, not only makes sense, but allows for some brand new world building.

Abyss, on 09 December 2019 - 06:26 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

FUCK. YES.

Note to Sony: THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE WANTED FROM THE BEGINNING. Not a goofy Feig-reboot...but a long sequel to the original films that honours them, but blazes it's own path.

Casting the OG GB's in this in smaller parts is also great (Yes, that's Venkman's voice narrating).

I am so in! This movie is going to make bank....

I want to believe, but i think there is more nostalgia than concept at work, and people tend to forget that GHOSTBUSTERS 2 wasn't actually that good.

I will defend GB II til my dying breath. Yes, some of it retread the first film, and it was goofier on the whole...but I like it a LOT and still feel like the concept of a city that almost all WITNESSED ghosts, demons, and a giant marshmallow man with their own eyes....5 years later refused to believe it and bought into the notion that the GB's caused it with lights and effects and the GB's subsequently got sued into the ground as a result. Say what you will, that's a FANTASTIC place to take the sequel without turning it into a complete repeat.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 09 December 2019 - 06:37 PM

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

It's got lots of comedic elements in it, but it's a serious film with a serious tone throughout...and if you remove all the supernatural and thriller/horror elements, it would not work.

Gotta be honest I think you're way off on this one. Like, yeah, it has supernatural elements and horror elements, but it's sending up the horror elements almost all the time and not in a Cabin in the Woods way. It's a genre comedy and a dry humour a lot of the time but it's definitely a comedy.


And the Stranger Things element is precisely why I don't trust it. It feels like an algorithm move.

Like, I'm sure it'll be a pretty good movie and I hope people enjoy it, I just don't think it seems anything like the spirit of the original.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

...

Abyss, on 09 December 2019 - 06:26 PM, said:

...
I want to believe, but i think there is more nostalgia than concept at work, and people tend to forget that GHOSTBUSTERS 2 wasn't actually that good.

I will defend GB II til my dying breath. Yes, some of it retread the first film, and it was goofier on the whole...but I like it a LOT and still feel like the concept of a city that almost all WITNESSED ghosts, demons, and a giant marshmallow man with their own eyes....5 years later refused to believe it and bought into the notion that the GB's caused it with lights and effects and the GB's subsequently got sued into the ground as a result. Say what you will, that's a FANTASTIC place to take the sequel without turning it into a complete repeat.

GB2 was slapstick where 1 was funny, depended on character stupidity as opposed to ignorance or scepticism, Winston is mostly sidelined, and Rick Moranis gets more time to be even more massively irritating than Rick Moranis. The big 3 cast look/sound like theyre phoning it in most of the time. And the big finale w the Statue of Liberty, which is stupid good fun, doesn't actually do much for what little plot there is. Also, 'hate slime' as a key plot device.

You may expel your dying breath now.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 09 December 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

It's got lots of comedic elements in it, but it's a serious film with a serious tone throughout...and if you remove all the supernatural and thriller/horror elements, it would not work.

Gotta be honest I think you're way off on this one. Like, yeah, it has supernatural elements and horror elements, but it's sending up the horror elements almost all the time and not in a Cabin in the Woods way. It's a genre comedy and a dry humour a lot of the time but it's definitely a comedy.

I maintain, it's not structured as a straight comedy. And if you remove the comedy elements, it could stand alone as a supernatural thriller all on it's own story points. You cannot do that with most comedy movies, because they would simply becomes boring slice of life stories...this one has a core that is much more worthy to stand alone.

And also it sends absolutely nothing up. What are you even? Never in one scene in Ghostbusters 1984 does the film 'send up' horror elements. Every one is treated exactly as it is, the opening with the library ghost is full on scary scene and plays out as such. The follow up scene with the boys in the location is the exact same, just with some workman-like jokes inserted, but the horror elements are 100% intact as such. The whole last act of the film is basically a horror sequence into which some funny random guys have been thrown, and they make the best of it with gallows humour, but it never pulls any of that punching at the horror level to send it up...it simply lives in it. The score even leans to my perspective on it, it's light and airy in the non-horror/thriller scenes, and dark and gritty in the horror bits...When Walter Peck shuts down the containment unit you palpably FEEL how bad an idea it is because of how straight that entire scene is played.

polishgenius, on 09 December 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

And the Stranger Things element is precisely why I don't trust it. It feels like an algorithm move.

Like, I'm sure it'll be a pretty good movie and I hope people enjoy it, I just don't think it seems anything like the spirit of the original.

The bolded is quite unfair. They are aiming at a demographic to make their film successful (no harm whatsoever in that), but deeming that this is "film by committee" AKA an algorithm and not an original story that they tailored to that demographic and not the other way round is a REALLY rough take to have after one trailer.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 09 December 2019 - 07:05 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

...

Abyss, on 09 December 2019 - 06:26 PM, said:

...
I want to believe, but i think there is more nostalgia than concept at work, and people tend to forget that GHOSTBUSTERS 2 wasn't actually that good.

I will defend GB II til my dying breath. Yes, some of it retread the first film, and it was goofier on the whole...but I like it a LOT and still feel like the concept of a city that almost all WITNESSED ghosts, demons, and a giant marshmallow man with their own eyes....5 years later refused to believe it and bought into the notion that the GB's caused it with lights and effects and the GB's subsequently got sued into the ground as a result. Say what you will, that's a FANTASTIC place to take the sequel without turning it into a complete repeat.

GB2 was slapstick where 1 was funny, depended on character stupidity as opposed to ignorance or scepticism, Winston is mostly sidelined, and Rick Moranis gets more time to be even more massively irritating than Rick Moranis. The big 3 cast look/sound like theyre phoning it in most of the time. And the big finale w the Statue of Liberty, which is stupid good fun, doesn't actually do much for what little plot there is. Also, 'hate slime' as a key plot device.

You may expel your dying breath now.

Two words.

Janosz Pohah. Your argument is invalid.

[Macros]

Nerd fight!(

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 07:12 PM, said:

And also it sends absolutely nothing up. What are you even? Never in one scene in Ghostbusters 1984 does the film 'send up' horror elements. Every one is treated exactly as it is, the opening with the library ghost is full on scary scene and plays out as such. The follow up scene with the boys in the location is the exact same, just with some workman-like jokes inserted, but the horror elements are 100% intact as such.

Are we talking about the same film here? The one with 'he's been slimed!' 'Great, save me some!', where the demonic possession trope is summarised as 'she bites, she drools, she claws, she sleeps above the covers- three feet above the covers' and in which the great eldrich horror at the end manifests as a marshmallow man?

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 07:20 PM, said:

Abyss, on 09 December 2019 - 07:05 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

...

Abyss, on 09 December 2019 - 06:26 PM, said:

...
I want to believe, but i think there is more nostalgia than concept at work, and people tend to forget that GHOSTBUSTERS 2 wasn't actually that good.

I will defend GB II til my dying breath. Yes, some of it retread the first film, and it was goofier on the whole...but I like it a LOT and still feel like the concept of a city that almost all WITNESSED ghosts, demons, and a giant marshmallow man with their own eyes....5 years later refused to believe it and bought into the notion that the GB's caused it with lights and effects and the GB's subsequently got sued into the ground as a result. Say what you will, that's a FANTASTIC place to take the sequel without turning it into a complete repeat.

GB2 was slapstick where 1 was funny, depended on character stupidity as opposed to ignorance or scepticism, Winston is mostly sidelined, and Rick Moranis gets more time to be even more massively irritating than Rick Moranis. The big 3 cast look/sound like theyre phoning it in most of the time. And the big finale w the Statue of Liberty, which is stupid good fun, doesn't actually do much for what little plot there is. Also, 'hate slime' as a key plot device.

You may expel your dying breath now.

Two words.

Janosz Pohah. Your argument is invalid.

No amount of the absolutely screen chewingly great Peter MacNicol can compensate for his primary weapon being a small river of evil saliva.

polishgenius, on 09 December 2019 - 08:06 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 09 December 2019 - 07:12 PM, said:

And also it sends absolutely nothing up. What are you even? Never in one scene in Ghostbusters 1984 does the film 'send up' horror elements. Every one is treated exactly as it is, the opening with the library ghost is full on scary scene and plays out as such. The follow up scene with the boys in the location is the exact same, just with some workman-like jokes inserted, but the horror elements are 100% intact as such.

Are we talking about the same film here? The one with 'he's been slimed!' 'Great, save me some!', where the demonic possession trope is summarised as 'she bites, she drools, she claws, she sleeps above the covers- three feet above the covers' and in which the great eldrich horror at the end manifests as a marshmallow man?

Hey you take that back MISTER STAY PUFT WOULD NEVER HURT ANYONE!!!!!!!

[polishgenius]

Anyway all I'm saying is you've all completely ignored the Wonder Woman trailer and that's just not nice coz it's fricking awesome.

[Malankazooie]

I very much enjoyed the first Wonder Woman movie. Thought it was the best of the DC movies by far. I am looking forward to the second one.

[amphibian]

There's a ghost blowjob in the first movie!

Liking a movie doesn't need to invoke a thesis of "it's not done as a straight comedy". It is clearly trying to work both sides of the comedy/slightly scary stuff dynamic with as much as it can do the entire time.

[Tiste Simeon]

Oh no we've found another movie that can start a QT monologue!