|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jul 6, 2016 17:04:34 GMT -5
Many thanks for posting that, berk; I have complete faith in Greg's taste when it comes to anything Burroughs-related. What did he think of the John Carter movie? I know you and Slam Bradley and a lot of other Burroughs fans liked it much more than I did, but I can't recall what if anything Greg had to say about it. He liked it. goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/03/09/tonight-or-tomorrow-but-for-sure-this-weekend-just-do-this-for-me/#more-104077"Go see John Carter." "It’s not just a great movie. It’s the Edgar Rice Burroughs movie that all of us that read the books have been praying for ..." "What I’m trying to say about Disney’s John Carter is that it’s about as close to what I saw in my head, back when I was thirteen years old reading the old Ballantine editions with those amazing paintings by Gino d’Achille, as it’s possible for a movie adaptation to get." |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 6, 2016 17:46:10 GMT -5
Well that's an endorsement!
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 6, 2016 17:59:57 GMT -5
For me the John Carter movie emphasised and exaggerated all the things I already disliked about the books - e.g. Carter's super-Martian strength - while I can't say it captured anything of whatever it was I did like about them.
However, there have been so many inaccurate Tarzan movies already that I think seeing one more won't disappoint me too much, even if it isn't an enjoyable movie in its own right, aside from its fidelity to ERB's character.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 12, 2016 9:51:22 GMT -5
So, I just took a look at some of the trailers for the new Ghostbusters movie and, man alive, it looks f****** terrible!
Now, let me just say up front that, as a rule of thumb, I generally hate remakes or re-imaginings of old films anyway because, you know, I like to see something approaching a semi-original idea from a new film. I'm also a HUGE fan of the original movie, so maybe the deck is just too stacked against it for me too give this remake a fair chance. But all that said, this film looks really, really weak -- and the trailers aren't even funny! I mean, they're not funny in any way...at all! Surely Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy and so, you would think that the trailers should at least raise a chortle. I sat through two or three different trailers on YouTube without ever once cracking a smile.
Also -- and I know I'm gonna open up a can of worms here -- but, is it just me or are there slightly uncomfortable undercurrents of misandry and racism in this film?
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jul 12, 2016 10:42:08 GMT -5
Here's the thing. Ghostbusters is and has been a beloved franchise and cultural phenomenon for decades. It has a dedicate fanbase and reasonably high level of cultural awareness in at least one or two generations of people. There have been several attempts at another sequel on and off for years. The expectations and hopes for ANY sequel in the franchise were always going to be astronomically, if not impossibly, high, let alone for a reimagining/reboot. To not only reboot but make major changes to the core characters, the filmmakers needed to make DAMN SURE they had a tight story, funny jokes, good pacing and writing, spot-on casting, and to find the elusive balance between loving respect/homage to the source material versus making a modern film.
...and unfortunately, it looks like they made a half-assed attempt to take four modern somewhat popular comedians, slap the Ghostbuster name on it, and make a movie of the same type and quality of any other comedy from the last decade or so (that is to say, not very good). Disappointing. I will wait for the reviews to come out first, and I may eventually watch it on Netflix or when it hits Redbox or something if the wife wants to, but I have no reason to believe it will be anything other than one more mediocre, crappy, unfunny, plotless sequence of jokes being paraded as a "movie" but with the added insult of changing a beloved franchise as a gimmick
That is not to say I have a problem with the concept of a reimagining at all, but it needed a lot more care than it seems they gave to really pull off. As an aside, my personal observation is there has been a MARKED decline in the quality of movies, and especially comedies, since the late 90s/early 2000s. Soulless, no cohesive story, and especially comedies are barely more than just enough story to string together a half dozen gags, and half of those are good if you're lucky. Most other genres have mostly recovered, but I'm hard-pressed to name a really great comedy to come out this century.
|
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jul 12, 2016 20:53:18 GMT -5
As an aside, my personal observation is there has been a MARKED decline in the quality of movies, and especially comedies, since the late 90s/early 2000s. Soulless, no cohesive story, and especially comedies are barely more than just enough story to string together a half dozen gags, and half of those are good if you're lucky. Most other genres have mostly recovered, but I'm hard-pressed to name a really great comedy to come out this century. The Martian  |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 12, 2016 20:58:51 GMT -5
What I wrote about Legend of Tarzan on Facebook.
Went to see Legend of Tarzan today. While I'm a big ERB fan, I'm not the biggest Tarzan fan I know. I'll definitely defer to Greg Hatcher and possibly Daniel H Cole. But I've read all of the the Tarzan novels at least once and have seen most of the the various adaptations. And, while not perfect, this one gets a whole lot right.
Skarsgard is good as Lord Greystoke. I can quibble with the fact that I want a French accent, but since this Greystoke didn't learn French before English from Paul d'Arnot, I'll live.
I loved that the mangani were there...Opar...Akut...the cameo by Tantor. This is a more mortal Tarzan. I can't see him killing Kerchak as a teen. But that's fine.
Jane was a revelation. Yes...she was a captive for large portions of the movie. But she fought back and she gave as good as she got.
I'm a little perplexed by the reviews. The film isn't without some issues. It was a bit slow, particularly in the first act. But it's a fun film and for an ERBophile it is a joy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 21:06:48 GMT -5
So, I just took a look at some of the trailers for the new Ghostbusters movie and, man alive, it looks f****** terrible! Now, let me just say up front that, as a rule of thumb, I generally hate remakes or re-imaginings of old films anyway because, you know, I like to see something approaching a semi-original idea from a new film. I'm also a HUGE fan of the original movie, so maybe the deck is just too stacked against it for me too give this remake a fair chance. But all that said, this film looks really, really weak -- and the trailers aren't even funny! I mean, they're not funny in any way...at all! Surely Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy and so, you would think that the trailers should at least raise a chortle. I sat through two or three different trailers on YouTube without ever once cracking a smile. Also -- and I know I'm gonna open up a can of worms here -- but, is it just me or are there slightly uncomfortable undercurrents of misandry and racism in this film? Not sure if there is misandry in it, I doubt it, but the reactions are extremely skewed by gender. Reviews by male reviewers have been uniformly negative and seem to focus on pointing out how it's not the original. Reviews by female reviewers have been moistly uniformly positive, praising the story, the performances and the cast in general. On Rotten Tomatoes the reviews follow similar lines, I think it was 69% of male posters gave the movie a thumbs down, while 64% of female posters gave it a thumbs up. The draw line I see is that those bringing pre-conceived notions about what Ghostbusters should be don't like it and were never going to like it because it's not what they first encountered when they were in grade school, while those who take it for what it is (and not looking for what it is not) seem to enjoy it for what it is and come away entertained and satisfied. Which brings us back to the old notion that output equals input, and if you go in not wanting to like it for whatever reason, you will find reasons not to like it, but if you went into the 80's original the first time looking for reasons not to like it, you would have found things to justify that then too. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Bronze Age Brian on Jul 12, 2016 21:48:24 GMT -5
So, I just took a look at some of the trailers for the new Ghostbusters movie and, man alive, it looks f****** terrible! Now, let me just say up front that, as a rule of thumb, I generally hate remakes or re-imaginings of old films anyway because, you know, I like to see something approaching a semi-original idea from a new film. I'm also a HUGE fan of the original movie, so maybe the deck is just too stacked against it for me too give this remake a fair chance. But all that said, this film looks really, really weak -- and the trailers aren't even funny! I mean, they're not funny in any way...at all! Surely Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy and so, you would think that the trailers should at least raise a chortle. I sat through two or three different trailers on YouTube without ever once cracking a smile. Also -- and I know I'm gonna open up a can of worms here -- but, is it just me or are there slightly uncomfortable undercurrents of misandry and racism in this film? And you won't believe it, but it's actually getting some decent early reviews. But I'm with you 'fess, the trailer looked bad. Way bad. Horrible. With all of the hate this movie got online, I'm interested in seeing how it does in the box office. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jul 13, 2016 13:36:26 GMT -5
The Martian You and I have very different criteria for what constitutes a comedy.  |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jul 13, 2016 13:42:59 GMT -5
The draw line I see is that those bringing pre-conceived notions about what Ghostbusters should be don't like it and were never going to like it because it's not what they first encountered when they were in grade school, while those who take it for what it is (and not looking for what it is not) seem to enjoy it for what it is and come away entertained and satisfied. -M A fair point on the one hand, but on the other, by calling it Ghostbusters, pre-conceived notions and comparisons are inevitable. Yes, people should try to take it on its own for what it is, but it is nearly impossible to remain completely objective when the filmmakers leverage an existing property. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. And you won't believe it, but it's actually getting some decent early reviews. But I'm with you 'fess, the trailer looked bad. Way bad. Horrible. With all of the hate this movie got online, I'm interested in seeing how it does in the box office. Agreed, and reviews are good. As skeptical as I have been on this one, I'm happy to change my opinion in light of new data. The backlash before there were even trailers was way over the top, but the trailer didn't encourage me much, so there being good reviews is at least eyebrow raising. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 14:00:17 GMT -5
The draw line I see is that those bringing pre-conceived notions about what Ghostbusters should be don't like it and were never going to like it because it's not what they first encountered when they were in grade school, while those who take it for what it is (and not looking for what it is not) seem to enjoy it for what it is and come away entertained and satisfied. -M A fair point on the one hand, but on the other, by calling it Ghostbusters, pre-conceived notions and comparisons are inevitable. Yes, people should try to take it on its own for what it is, but it is nearly impossible to remain completely objective when the filmmakers leverage an existing property. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. And you won't believe it, but it's actually getting some decent early reviews. But I'm with you 'fess, the trailer looked bad. Way bad. Horrible. With all of the hate this movie got online, I'm interested in seeing how it does in the box office. Agreed, and reviews are good. As skeptical as I have been on this one, I'm happy to change my opinion in light of new data. The backlash before there were even trailers was way over the top, but the trailer didn't encourage me much, so there being good reviews is at least eyebrow raising. The preferred target demographic for movie goers is the 18-34 year-olds. The oldest of that group was 2 years old when the original came out and were more likely exposed to the animated series moreso than the movies themselves as a first contact scenario. The youngest were't born until long after the movies had gone fallow and were things in a video store rather than an active franchise at the forefront of pop culture. I think it is a fair expectation that the target demographic does not have the same preconceived notions and expectations that us old foggies who have aged beyond the target demographic have because we were there when the original hit. So, when Millennials are the target demographic (and Millennials are defined as 18-34 year olds), more and more media is going to be targeted towards their expectations than our or previous generations. Part of the resentment I believe stems from those of our generation realizing they are irrelevant in target demographics now and upset things are no longer targeted to their tastes. Now get off my lawn. -M |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jul 13, 2016 14:44:46 GMT -5
As just barely having one toe still in that target age range, my opinion is still supreme! BOW TO ME, MOVIE MAKERS!
In all seriousness, you raise an interesting point. You are no doubt rate that movies are targeted toward modern tastes, but while most folks in that age range were small when the originals came out (if even born yet), this is also the generation that grew up on pervasive access to video stores and access to back catalog, so I wonder how much being born after it weighs into their expectations. I was either not yet born or so young as to be effectively the same thing for the original one or two Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones, and Star Wars movies and in all cases watched them well after they were all out (not counting more recent entries) and they are still beloved franchises for me, and I have certain expectations or at least hopes for anything new in their franchises. So who knows how it all factors in together.
And you're right, I was far more familiar with both Ghostbusters cartoons before I saw the movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jul 13, 2016 19:38:52 GMT -5
The Martian You and I have very different criteria for what constitutes a comedy. No, I'm with you. I'm just passing along the view of the Academy. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jul 13, 2016 19:39:35 GMT -5
A fair point on the one hand, but on the other, by calling it Ghostbusters, pre-conceived notions and comparisons are inevitable. Yes, people should try to take it on its own for what it is, but it is nearly impossible to remain completely objective when the filmmakers leverage an existing property. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. Agreed, and reviews are good. As skeptical as I have been on this one, I'm happy to change my opinion in light of new data. The backlash before there were even trailers was way over the top, but the trailer didn't encourage me much, so there being good reviews is at least eyebrow raising. The preferred target demographic for movie goers is the 18-34 year-olds. The oldest of that group was 2 years old when the original came out and were more likely exposed to the animated series moreso than the movies themselves as a first contact scenario. The youngest were't born until long after the movies had gone fallow and were things in a video store rather than an active franchise at the forefront of pop culture. I think it is a fair expectation that the target demographic does not have the same preconceived notions and expectations that us old foggies who have aged beyond the target demographic have because we were there when the original hit. So, when Millennials are the target demographic (and Millennials are defined as 18-34 year olds), more and more media is going to be targeted towards their expectations than our or previous generations. Part of the resentment I believe stems from those of our generation realizing they are irrelevant in target demographics now and upset things are no longer targeted to their tastes. Now get off my lawn. -M 
|
|
