GHOSTBUSTERS 3
Discussion
moanthebairns said:
The trailer is out today.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/3/11150324/new-ghos...
Ghosts look amazing, everything else, utter s
te. If that is the best bits, dear God. Lost its Dry, dark humour replaced with in your face, wacky st. I hate new comedies.
I got to 1m20s.http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/3/11150324/new-ghos...
Ghosts look amazing, everything else, utter s
te. If that is the best bits, dear God. Lost its Dry, dark humour replaced with in your face, wacky st. I hate new comedies. f
king disgrace. Trying to ruin my memory of a quality film.On the face of it it looks very similar to the first one - the premise that someone has created a device which amplifies paranormal activity.
I'm pretty sure that what Ivo Shandor did with Central Park West - he built a building with cold rivited girders with cores of pure selemium - plus his roof cap was exactly like the kind that NASA uses to identify dead pulsars in deep space - so you know, the whole building was a huge super conductive antenna that was designed and built expressly for the purpose of pulling in and concntrating spiritual turbulence. But you guys know this already
Anyway - I'll still probably go and watch it.
I'm pretty sure that what Ivo Shandor did with Central Park West - he built a building with cold rivited girders with cores of pure selemium - plus his roof cap was exactly like the kind that NASA uses to identify dead pulsars in deep space - so you know, the whole building was a huge super conductive antenna that was designed and built expressly for the purpose of pulling in and concntrating spiritual turbulence. But you guys know this already
Anyway - I'll still probably go and watch it.
Edited by Mr Gearchange on Thursday 3rd March 17:52
Mr Gearchange said:
On the face of it it looks very similar to the first one - the premise that someone has created a device which amplifies paranormal activity.
I'm pretty sure that what Ivo Shandor did with Central Park West - he built a building with cold rivited girders with cores of pure selemium - plus his roof cap was exactly like the kind that NASA uses to identify dead pulsars in deep space - so you know, the whole building was a huge super conductive antenna that was designed and built expressly for the purpose of pulling in and concntrating spiritual turbulence. But you guys know this already
Anyway - I'll still probably go and watch it.
I'm pretty sure that what Ivo Shandor did with Central Park West - he built a building with cold rivited girders with cores of pure selemium - plus his roof cap was exactly like the kind that NASA uses to identify dead pulsars in deep space - so you know, the whole building was a huge super conductive antenna that was designed and built expressly for the purpose of pulling in and concntrating spiritual turbulence. But you guys know this already
Anyway - I'll still probably go and watch it.
Edited by Mr Gearchange on Thursday 3rd March 17:52
love it. It's my favourite film of all time. I've seen it over a 1000 times, I know every line.
Will I go to see it. Well, it's out a few days before my birthday so I'll do the first two see it in imax and come out f
ked off never watching it again I'm not paying cinema money for this, I don't want to encourage more rubbish like this, but I will probably watch it when it appears on TV about 6 months later.
I don't know who this film is aimed at though. Us old folk that watched the original will hate it because we are grumpy, don't like modern comedy films and don't find most women funny, especially American women. The younger audience might watch it but I can't see them really giving a damn about a 30 year old film series that doesn't start with the word Star.
I don't know who this film is aimed at though. Us old folk that watched the original will hate it because we are grumpy, don't like modern comedy films and don't find most women funny, especially American women. The younger audience might watch it but I can't see them really giving a damn about a 30 year old film series that doesn't start with the word Star.
Yup they seemed to have tried to follow the original role as best as they could but with wacky women. I mean for fksake even the black women will believe anything as long as there's a steady pay cheque in it. Surely they will have to explain what happened to the original squad.
Going on the trailer it's st enough to turn you white.
ksake even the black women will believe anything as long as there's a steady pay cheque in it. Surely they will have to explain what happened to the original squad. Going on the trailer it's s
t enough to turn you white. 
The issue here is that they're riding the Bridesmaids market, which came off the back of the Seth Rogan market, which is moribund (if not already dead)
Their hand was forced into recasting all women because they couldn't get the original back. Nobody would accept the original cast being wholesale replaced (four male + one female) so they've gone in totally the opposite direction (four female + one male) using the Bridesmaids market as a dependancy.
As already stated, the Seth Rogan / Bridesmaids market is nearing its end. As they've taken such an extreme direction (nobody can argue replacing all male with all female is not heavy handed) what happens to all future female cast and scripts if (when) this tanks? It doesn't even have to tank at the box office - negative reviews will do the damage; all female casts / scripts will be refiled to the bottom of the pile. Hollywood is still too male dominated and risk adverse.
They should have taken the Star Wars approach. They should have mixed the cast, and written strong female leads. Christen Wiig could have carried the movie in the way Bill Murray took lead in the original. That would have been genuine progress for women in Hollywood. Instead we're getting a cynical rehash, that'll st on the original whilst damaging the very cause it purports to progress.
Their hand was forced into recasting all women because they couldn't get the original back. Nobody would accept the original cast being wholesale replaced (four male + one female) so they've gone in totally the opposite direction (four female + one male) using the Bridesmaids market as a dependancy.
As already stated, the Seth Rogan / Bridesmaids market is nearing its end. As they've taken such an extreme direction (nobody can argue replacing all male with all female is not heavy handed) what happens to all future female cast and scripts if (when) this tanks? It doesn't even have to tank at the box office - negative reviews will do the damage; all female casts / scripts will be refiled to the bottom of the pile. Hollywood is still too male dominated and risk adverse.
They should have taken the Star Wars approach. They should have mixed the cast, and written strong female leads. Christen Wiig could have carried the movie in the way Bill Murray took lead in the original. That would have been genuine progress for women in Hollywood. Instead we're getting a cynical rehash, that'll s
t on the original whilst damaging the very cause it purports to progress. 
erm..............
Come on really - I can understand the acting, casting, humour etc being worse than the first - but in 30 years, can they not have at least made the SFX better?
Pretty much what we expected......chick flick toilet humour....ecotplasm "in every crack, very hard to wash off" #notverysubtleeuphamism
Come on really - I can understand the acting, casting, humour etc being worse than the first - but in 30 years, can they not have at least made the SFX better?
Pretty much what we expected......chick flick toilet humour....ecotplasm "in every crack, very hard to wash off" #notverysubtleeuphamism
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 3rd March 22:20
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff