Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ghostbusters
94 views
Skip to first unread message
Howard
Jul 21, 2016, 9:41:02 PM7/21/16
to
I saw it yesterday, and it's pretty good. It's not a start to finish
laughathon, but it's fun and well done. The four leads are very good and
Chris (Thor) Hemsworth is really funny as a very dim bulb.
I think it sags a bit after the gang catches their first ghost, and the
main antagonist is really weakly fleshed out, which tends to lower the
tension and fun somewhat -- I think the leads would have been more
entertaining reacting against a more interesting challenge. But overall
it's quick and smart and funny -- it's light on its feet.
The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying --
while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of mocking of
men is really mild. The obvious point here is that people who complain
about the world becoming too sensitive are, of course, being vastly too
sensitive themselves. (I realize that a lot of the upset is just cynically
and insincerely manufactured outrage, but that's a whole other story.)
laughathon, but it's fun and well done. The four leads are very good and
Chris (Thor) Hemsworth is really funny as a very dim bulb.
I think it sags a bit after the gang catches their first ghost, and the
main antagonist is really weakly fleshed out, which tends to lower the
tension and fun somewhat -- I think the leads would have been more
entertaining reacting against a more interesting challenge. But overall
it's quick and smart and funny -- it's light on its feet.
The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying --
while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of mocking of
men is really mild. The obvious point here is that people who complain
about the world becoming too sensitive are, of course, being vastly too
sensitive themselves. (I realize that a lot of the upset is just cynically
and insincerely manufactured outrage, but that's a whole other story.)
Opus the Penguin
Jul 22, 2016, 1:55:28 AM7/22/16
to
Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying
> -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of
> mocking of men is really mild.
I just read about this reaction the other day and was equally mystified.
> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying
> -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of
> mocking of men is really mild.
If I'm understanding correctly, casting women in those roles is
"pandering" to a female (and SJW) audience. But casting men in those
roles would NOT be pandering to a male (and Gamergate) audience. At times
it reads like the sort of subtle irony I might employ to make the
opposite point. But these mooks appear to be serious.
I could understand complaints if the movie was heavyhanded and preachy.
But the complaints I read were from people who hadn't seen the movie and
had no intention of doing so. They were offended simply by the casting,
irrespective of what "message" the film did or didn't have.
I haven't seen the movie. But my take in general is, more please. Mix it
up, Hollywood. Don't try to send me a message because you suck at that.
Just write and cast diversely and you'll be able to tell new stories, and
old stories from new angles.
From what I've read of the new Ghostbusters, maybe next time put the
black woman in charge and--this is going to be hard for you to get your
minds around--don't make her "sassy".
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
John Mc.
Jul 22, 2016, 6:16:59 AM7/22/16
to
don't like any of the leads. (Well, to be honest, I'd never heard of Leslie
Jones.)
John Mc.
bobg
Jul 22, 2016, 7:54:37 AM7/22/16
to
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 1:55:28 AM UTC-4, Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying
> > -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of
> > mocking of men is really mild.
>
> I just read about this reaction the other day and was equally mystified.
> If I'm understanding correctly, casting women in those roles is
> "pandering" to a female (and SJW) audience. But casting men in those
> roles would NOT be pandering to a male (and Gamergate) audience. At times
> it reads like the sort of subtle irony I might employ to make the
> opposite point. But these mooks appear to be serious.
It's because men are the default humans, ESPECIALLY in art. When "A
> Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying
> > -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of
> > mocking of men is really mild.
>
> I just read about this reaction the other day and was equally mystified.
> If I'm understanding correctly, casting women in those roles is
> "pandering" to a female (and SJW) audience. But casting men in those
> roles would NOT be pandering to a male (and Gamergate) audience. At times
> it reads like the sort of subtle irony I might employ to make the
> opposite point. But these mooks appear to be serious.
guy walks into a bar..." it's a blank canvas without preconceptions; but
when "A woman [or a rabbi or a Mexican or a horse] walks into a bar..."
then the joke is going to have something to do with her womanness (or
rabbinitude or Mexicality or equinity).
It doesn't crack the top ten awful things that Wayne LaPierre's said in
public life, but one that stuck with me was this gem from last year: "I
have to tell you, eight years of a demographically symbolic president is
enough." Because a black president, or a woman president, are
"demographically symbolic," when what we need is a normal, *real*
president who's not a member of any specific demographic - you know, a
white dude.
Howard
Jul 22, 2016, 10:41:21 AM7/22/16
to
John Mc. <Jo...@tdcogre.com> wrote:
>
> I've no interest in the film. Because of the gender swapping? No I
> just don't like any of the leads. (Well, to be honest, I'd never heard
> of Leslie Jones.)
I found out after I read it that the four leads are all Saturday Night Live
>
> I've no interest in the film. Because of the gender swapping? No I
> just don't like any of the leads. (Well, to be honest, I'd never heard
> of Leslie Jones.)
alums, which I didn't know because I think that show is awful.
But they're good and reasonably restrained considering the type of movie.
I thought they made a good, engaging comic team.
I can easily understand not wanting to pay for it in a theater. It's not a
great comedy, just a reasonably good one. If it's around for free watching
at home, I'd say it's definitely worth watching the first half hour to see
if it clicks -- I'm sure it doesn't meet everyone's tastes.
Howard
Jul 22, 2016, 11:02:33 AM7/22/16
to
> Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
>> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any
>> kind of mocking of men is really mild.
>
> I just read about this reaction the other day and was equally
> mystified. If I'm understanding correctly, casting women in those
> roles is "pandering" to a female (and SJW) audience. But casting men
> in those roles would NOT be pandering to a male (and Gamergate)
> audience. At times it reads like the sort of subtle irony I might
> employ to make the opposite point. But these mooks appear to be
> serious.
One thing I read is that some people claimed the complaints about the
>
>> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
>> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any
>> kind of mocking of men is really mild.
>
> I just read about this reaction the other day and was equally
> mystified. If I'm understanding correctly, casting women in those
> roles is "pandering" to a female (and SJW) audience. But casting men
> in those roles would NOT be pandering to a male (and Gamergate)
> audience. At times it reads like the sort of subtle irony I might
> employ to make the opposite point. But these mooks appear to be
> serious.
new Ghostbusters had nothing whatsoever to do with women leads, just a
complaint about the Hollywood remake culture. But the way this movie
became such a target of a group who didn't attack other remakes makes it
pretty clear that's a bogus complaint.
I'm more sympathetic to complaints targeted at the new Star Trek movie,
because my recollection from seeing the first new one is that it
involved some kind of time travel thing that claimed to wipe out all of
the old history of the franchise. I get how people who were invested in
all of that could be bothered. Ghostbusters is just another remake,
like the way The Office was a remake of The Office.
Les Albert
Jul 22, 2016, 11:38:50 AM7/22/16
to
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 05:55:27 -0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
[re the movie, "Ghostbusters"]
> ...
Reminds me of the following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Playwrights and screenwriters are often cautioned against sending a
political message in their dramatic scripts; the public wants
entertainment, not a lecture. Movie producer Samuel Goldwyn
(1904-1961) has been credited with “Just write me the comedy. Messages
are for Western Union” since at least 1943. The playwright Moss Hart
(1904-1961) was credited in 1953 with saying, “If you’ve got a
message, call Western Union.” - http://tinyurl.com/jas8upr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
[re the movie, "Ghostbusters"]
> ...
>I could understand complaints if the movie was heavyhanded and preachy.
>But the complaints I read were from people who hadn't seen the movie and
>had no intention of doing so. They were offended simply by the casting,
>irrespective of what "message" the film did or didn't have.
>I haven't seen the movie. But my take in general is, more please. Mix it
>up, Hollywood. Don't try to send me a message because you suck at that.
> ...
>But the complaints I read were from people who hadn't seen the movie and
>had no intention of doing so. They were offended simply by the casting,
>irrespective of what "message" the film did or didn't have.
>I haven't seen the movie. But my take in general is, more please. Mix it
>up, Hollywood. Don't try to send me a message because you suck at that.
Reminds me of the following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Playwrights and screenwriters are often cautioned against sending a
political message in their dramatic scripts; the public wants
entertainment, not a lecture. Movie producer Samuel Goldwyn
(1904-1961) has been credited with “Just write me the comedy. Messages
are for Western Union” since at least 1943. The playwright Moss Hart
(1904-1961) was credited in 1953 with saying, “If you’ve got a
message, call Western Union.” - http://tinyurl.com/jas8upr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les
John Mc.
Jul 22, 2016, 12:04:28 PM7/22/16
to
film "Local Hero" immensely. But it's a movie with a message. I think the
problem begins when the writer/director lets getting the message across
take over center stage. Make the film entertaining THEN worry about your
message.
John Mc.
Les Albert
Jul 22, 2016, 12:59:27 PM7/22/16
to
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:04:27 -0400, John Mc. <Jo...@tdcogre.com> wrote:
>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 05:55:27 -0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
>> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [re the movie, "Ghostbusters"]
>>> ...
>>> I could understand complaints if the movie was heavyhanded and preachy.
>>> But the complaints I read were from people who hadn't seen the movie and
>>> had no intention of doing so. They were offended simply by the casting,
>>> irrespective of what "message" the film did or didn't have.
>>> I haven't seen the movie. But my take in general is, more please. Mix it
>>> up, Hollywood. Don't try to send me a message because you suck at that.
>>> ...
>> Reminds me of the following:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Playwrights and screenwriters are often cautioned against sending a
>> political message in their dramatic scripts; the public wants
>> entertainment, not a lecture. Movie producer Samuel Goldwyn
>> (1904-1961) has been credited with ?Just write me the comedy. Messages
>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 05:55:27 -0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
>> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [re the movie, "Ghostbusters"]
>>> ...
>>> I could understand complaints if the movie was heavyhanded and preachy.
>>> But the complaints I read were from people who hadn't seen the movie and
>>> had no intention of doing so. They were offended simply by the casting,
>>> irrespective of what "message" the film did or didn't have.
>>> I haven't seen the movie. But my take in general is, more please. Mix it
>>> up, Hollywood. Don't try to send me a message because you suck at that.
>>> ...
>> Reminds me of the following:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Playwrights and screenwriters are often cautioned against sending a
>> political message in their dramatic scripts; the public wants
>> entertainment, not a lecture. Movie producer Samuel Goldwyn
>> are for Western Union? since at least 1943. The playwright Moss Hart
>> (1904-1961) was credited in 1953 with saying, ?If you?ve got a
>> message, call Western Union.? - http://tinyurl.com/jas8upr
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Les
>I think one can have a "message" and still have a good film. I enjoy the
>film "Local Hero" immensely. But it's a movie with a message. I think the
>problem begins when the writer/director lets getting the message across
>take over center stage. Make the film entertaining THEN worry about your
>message.
I absolutely agree with you; my post above is just for humor.
>> Les
>I think one can have a "message" and still have a good film. I enjoy the
>film "Local Hero" immensely. But it's a movie with a message. I think the
>problem begins when the writer/director lets getting the message across
>take over center stage. Make the film entertaining THEN worry about your
>message.
I'm really surprised that you cite the film, "Local Hero", a movie
that I like and have in my collection, but I think is forgotten by
most people. The message film that I like is, "Hero", a movie with
Dustin Hoffman from 1992. It is entertaining without the message
taking center stage. Here is the scene near the end of the movie that
has the message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSijB9-Hw7g
Les
art...@yahoo.com
Jul 22, 2016, 1:53:04 PM7/22/16
to
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:41:21 AM UTC-4, Howard wrote:
> I can easily understand not wanting to pay for it in a theater. It's not a
> great comedy, just a reasonably good one.
Does it have the Staypufft Marshmallow Man (Or maybe Woman?)
> I can easily understand not wanting to pay for it in a theater. It's not a
> great comedy, just a reasonably good one.
hymie!
Jul 22, 2016, 3:27:35 PM7/22/16
to
In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
with the original that needed to be fixed, and maybe Hollywood should
try writing a new movie every now and then, instead of taking a book out
of the library and handing it to a movie director?
--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
My fitbit says I've walked 2511 steps today (as of 15:22).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard <howr...@htmail.com>, who said:
> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying --
> while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of mocking of
> men is really mild.
Am I allowed to dislike the movie simply because there was nothing wrong
> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying --
> while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of mocking of
> men is really mild.
with the original that needed to be fixed, and maybe Hollywood should
try writing a new movie every now and then, instead of taking a book out
of the library and handing it to a movie director?
--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
My fitbit says I've walked 2511 steps today (as of 15:22).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard
Jul 22, 2016, 4:53:04 PM7/22/16
to
hymie! <hy...@lactose.homelinux.net> wrote:
> In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Howard <howr...@htmail.com>, who said:
>
>> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
>> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any
>> kind of mocking of men is really mild.
>
> Am I allowed to dislike the movie simply because there was nothing
> wrong with the original that needed to be fixed, and maybe Hollywood
> should try writing a new movie every now and then, instead of taking a
> book out of the library and handing it to a movie director?
If you hate every movie like that, sure. Me, I'd hate to have not seen
> In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Howard <howr...@htmail.com>, who said:
>
>> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
>> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any
>> kind of mocking of men is really mild.
>
> Am I allowed to dislike the movie simply because there was nothing
> wrong with the original that needed to be fixed, and maybe Hollywood
> should try writing a new movie every now and then, instead of taking a
> book out of the library and handing it to a movie director?
West Side Story, The Magnificent Seven, The Departed, True Grit,
Godzilla, The Thing, A Fistful of Dollars, Invasion of the Body
Snatchers, Henry V, Ran, The Talented Mr. Ripley....
I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can also
do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was a good
movie. And Hollywood has been known to screw up original ideas from
time to time.
Howard
Jul 22, 2016, 4:54:52 PM7/22/16
to
actors and, uh, non-actors from the first movie. Unfortunately, I don't
think they did a very good job with them.
Opus the Penguin
Jul 22, 2016, 10:34:13 PM7/22/16
to
Opus the Penguin
Jul 22, 2016, 10:34:16 PM7/22/16
to
--
Opus the Penguin
Too soon?
danny burstein
Jul 22, 2016, 11:05:31 PM7/22/16
to
In <XnsA64DCDD0BA6BCop...@127.0.0.1> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> writes:
>"art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:41:21 AM UTC-4, Howard wrote:
>>
>>> I can easily understand not wanting to pay for it in a theater. It's
>>> not a great comedy, just a reasonably good one.
>>
>> Does it have the Staypufft Marshmallow Man (Or maybe Woman?)
>Oh, man. There NEEDS to be a Staypufft Marshmallow Woman.
Similarly, if the Ghostbusters are all women (not a spoiler...)
>"art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:41:21 AM UTC-4, Howard wrote:
>>
>>> I can easily understand not wanting to pay for it in a theater. It's
>>> not a great comedy, just a reasonably good one.
>>
>> Does it have the Staypufft Marshmallow Man (Or maybe Woman?)
>Oh, man. There NEEDS to be a Staypufft Marshmallow Woman.
then is there a male analog to Sigourney Weaver?
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Bob
Jul 22, 2016, 11:53:09 PM7/22/16
to
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 9:41:02 PM UTC-4, Howard wrote:
> I saw it yesterday, and it's pretty good. It's not a start to finish
> laughathon, but it's fun and well done. The four leads are very good and
> Chris (Thor) Hemsworth is really funny as a very dim bulb.
>
> I think it sags a bit after the gang catches their first ghost, and the
> main antagonist is really weakly fleshed out, which tends to lower the
> tension and fun somewhat -- I think the leads would have been more
> entertaining reacting against a more interesting challenge. But overall
> it's quick and smart and funny -- it's light on its feet.
Is it supposed to be a remake of the original, rather than a sequel? Is it enjoyable for people who've seen the original? Like, enough of a reimagining?
> I saw it yesterday, and it's pretty good. It's not a start to finish
> laughathon, but it's fun and well done. The four leads are very good and
> Chris (Thor) Hemsworth is really funny as a very dim bulb.
>
> I think it sags a bit after the gang catches their first ghost, and the
> main antagonist is really weakly fleshed out, which tends to lower the
> tension and fun somewhat -- I think the leads would have been more
> entertaining reacting against a more interesting challenge. But overall
> it's quick and smart and funny -- it's light on its feet.
Charles Bishop
Jul 23, 2016, 11:49:25 AM7/23/16
to
In article <XnsA64DABCD9D...@46.165.242.75>,
the complaint above. It's not about a movie made from a different
source, but a remake of a movie that was really good in the first place.
Also, I never saw Henry I through IV so can't judge those.
charles
Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
> hymie! <hy...@lactose.homelinux.net> wrote:
>
> > In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> > Howard <howr...@htmail.com>, who said:
> >
> >> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
> >> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any
> >> kind of mocking of men is really mild.
> >
> > Am I allowed to dislike the movie simply because there was nothing
> > wrong with the original that needed to be fixed, and maybe Hollywood
> > should try writing a new movie every now and then, instead of taking a
> > book out of the library and handing it to a movie director?
>
> If you hate every movie like that, sure. Me, I'd hate to have not seen
> West Side Story, The Magnificent Seven, The Departed, True Grit,
> Godzilla, The Thing, A Fistful of Dollars, Invasion of the Body
> Snatchers, Henry V, Ran, The Talented Mr. Ripley....
I don't know about the others, but I don't think West Side Story fits
> hymie! <hy...@lactose.homelinux.net> wrote:
>
> > In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> > Howard <howr...@htmail.com>, who said:
> >
> >> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
> >> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any
> >> kind of mocking of men is really mild.
> >
> > Am I allowed to dislike the movie simply because there was nothing
> > wrong with the original that needed to be fixed, and maybe Hollywood
> > should try writing a new movie every now and then, instead of taking a
> > book out of the library and handing it to a movie director?
>
> If you hate every movie like that, sure. Me, I'd hate to have not seen
> West Side Story, The Magnificent Seven, The Departed, True Grit,
> Godzilla, The Thing, A Fistful of Dollars, Invasion of the Body
> Snatchers, Henry V, Ran, The Talented Mr. Ripley....
the complaint above. It's not about a movie made from a different
source, but a remake of a movie that was really good in the first place.
Also, I never saw Henry I through IV so can't judge those.
>
> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can also
> do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was a good
> movie. And Hollywood has been known to screw up original ideas from
> time to time.
--
> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can also
> do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was a good
> movie. And Hollywood has been known to screw up original ideas from
> time to time.
charles
John Mc.
Jul 23, 2016, 4:04:17 PM7/23/16
to
by the same director. I haven't watch the Hoffman film for some time though.
John Mc
Les Albert
Jul 23, 2016, 4:41:22 PM7/23/16
to
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 16:04:12 -0400, "John Mc." <jo...@thetdcogre.com>
wrote:
You could do worse! But I think we probably only have similar taste
for some movies. I now have about 285 movies in my collection, and a
sampling of the titles would probably not mean much to you but try
these:
The Treasure of Sierra Madre
The Actress
Singin' in the Rain
Billy Budd
Billy Liar
Cinema Paradiso
Captain's Paradise
Croupier
Das Boot
Dr. Strangelove
Fanny and Alexander
Fifth Element
Get Carter
Great Expectations
Harvey
Hobson's Choice
Hope and Glory
>I'm also partial to Comfort and Joy
>by the same director. I haven't watch the Hoffman film for some time though.
I never saw "Comfort and Joy", but after just reading the plot
description on Wikipedia I can tell you that I wouldn't watch that
movie on a bet. Anyone's favorite movies is like the reply of the
farmer when he was asked why he was kissing his pig. He said,
"There's no accounting for taste.".
Les
wrote:
for some movies. I now have about 285 movies in my collection, and a
sampling of the titles would probably not mean much to you but try
these:
The Treasure of Sierra Madre
The Actress
Singin' in the Rain
Billy Budd
Billy Liar
Cinema Paradiso
Captain's Paradise
Croupier
Das Boot
Dr. Strangelove
Fanny and Alexander
Fifth Element
Get Carter
Great Expectations
Harvey
Hobson's Choice
Hope and Glory
>I'm also partial to Comfort and Joy
>by the same director. I haven't watch the Hoffman film for some time though.
description on Wikipedia I can tell you that I wouldn't watch that
movie on a bet. Anyone's favorite movies is like the reply of the
farmer when he was asked why he was kissing his pig. He said,
"There's no accounting for taste.".
Les
Lesmond
Jul 23, 2016, 10:34:43 PM7/23/16
to
--
Queen of the fucking universe.
Howard
Jul 24, 2016, 11:51:28 AM7/24/16
to
Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote :
> Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
>
>> hymie! <hy...@lactose.homelinux.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
>> > Howard <howr...@htmail.com>, who said:
>> >
>> >> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
>> >> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view,
>> >> any kind of mocking of men is really mild.
>> >
>> > Am I allowed to dislike the movie simply because there was nothing
>> > wrong with the original that needed to be fixed, and maybe
>> > Hollywood should try writing a new movie every now and then,
>> > instead of taking a book out of the library and handing it to a
>> > movie director?
>>
>> If you hate every movie like that, sure. Me, I'd hate to have not
>> seen West Side Story, The Magnificent Seven, The Departed, True
>> Grit, Godzilla, The Thing, A Fistful of Dollars, Invasion of the Body
>> Snatchers, Henry V, Ran, The Talented Mr. Ripley....
>
> I don't know about the others, but I don't think West Side Story fits
> the complaint above. It's not about a movie made from a different
> source, but a remake of a movie that was really good in the first
> place.
There were various and sundry and perfectly fine movie versions of Romeo
and Juliet before Bernstein decided to turn crumhorns into bongos. I
think there were a few other changes too. But for that matter, I'm not
sure why Shakespeare felt it necessary to write anything when Masuccio
Salernitano did a perfectly fine job. Well, maybe he had some
improvements.
> Also, I never saw Henry I through IV so can't judge those.
>>
>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
>> a good movie. And Hollywood has been known to screw up original
>> ideas from time to time.
Come to think of it, I just saw a preview for the new version of The
Magnificent Seven. I thought Chris Pratt was good in Guardians of the
Galaxy, but he's no Toshiro Mifune.
> Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
>
>> hymie! <hy...@lactose.homelinux.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
>> > Howard <howr...@htmail.com>, who said:
>> >
>> >> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
>> >> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view,
>> >> any kind of mocking of men is really mild.
>> >
>> > Am I allowed to dislike the movie simply because there was nothing
>> > wrong with the original that needed to be fixed, and maybe
>> > Hollywood should try writing a new movie every now and then,
>> > instead of taking a book out of the library and handing it to a
>> > movie director?
>>
>> If you hate every movie like that, sure. Me, I'd hate to have not
>> seen West Side Story, The Magnificent Seven, The Departed, True
>> Grit, Godzilla, The Thing, A Fistful of Dollars, Invasion of the Body
>> Snatchers, Henry V, Ran, The Talented Mr. Ripley....
>
> I don't know about the others, but I don't think West Side Story fits
> the complaint above. It's not about a movie made from a different
> source, but a remake of a movie that was really good in the first
> place.
and Juliet before Bernstein decided to turn crumhorns into bongos. I
think there were a few other changes too. But for that matter, I'm not
sure why Shakespeare felt it necessary to write anything when Masuccio
Salernitano did a perfectly fine job. Well, maybe he had some
improvements.
> Also, I never saw Henry I through IV so can't judge those.
>>
>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
>> a good movie. And Hollywood has been known to screw up original
>> ideas from time to time.
Magnificent Seven. I thought Chris Pratt was good in Guardians of the
Galaxy, but he's no Toshiro Mifune.
Howard
Jul 24, 2016, 11:53:06 AM7/24/16
to
>>"art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:41:21 AM UTC-4, Howard wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can easily understand not wanting to pay for it in a theater.
>>>> It's not a great comedy, just a reasonably good one.
>>>
>>> Does it have the Staypufft Marshmallow Man (Or maybe Woman?)
>
>>Oh, man. There NEEDS to be a Staypufft Marshmallow Woman.
>
> Similarly, if the Ghostbusters are all women (not a spoiler...)
> then is there a male analog to Sigourney Weaver?
Chris Hemsworth, although he takes more clothes off in the remake than
>
>>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:41:21 AM UTC-4, Howard wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can easily understand not wanting to pay for it in a theater.
>>>> It's not a great comedy, just a reasonably good one.
>>>
>>> Does it have the Staypufft Marshmallow Man (Or maybe Woman?)
>
>>Oh, man. There NEEDS to be a Staypufft Marshmallow Woman.
>
> Similarly, if the Ghostbusters are all women (not a spoiler...)
> then is there a male analog to Sigourney Weaver?
Weaver did in the original. I don't know if that's an improvement. I'm
going to guess his chest is bigger.
Howard
Jul 24, 2016, 11:53:12 AM7/24/16
to
movie.
danny burstein
Jul 24, 2016, 1:13:34 PM7/24/16
to
[snippeth]
>>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
>>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
>>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
>>> a good movie. i
And let's not forget that the most well known
version of The Wizard of Oz, featuring Liza
("with a Z") Minelli's mom, of 1939, is a remake
of earlier ones.
>>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
>>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
>>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
And let's not forget that the most well known
version of The Wizard of Oz, featuring Liza
("with a Z") Minelli's mom, of 1939, is a remake
of earlier ones.
Bill Turlock
Jul 24, 2016, 2:12:35 PM7/24/16
to
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 15:53:04 +0000 (UTC), Howard <howr...@htmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>Chris Hemsworth, although he takes more clothes off in the remake than
>Weaver did in the original. I don't know if that's an improvement. I'm
>going to guess his chest is bigger.
Not that there's hing wrong with that.
>Weaver did in the original. I don't know if that's an improvement. I'm
>going to guess his chest is bigger.
Bill Turlock
Jul 24, 2016, 2:16:25 PM7/24/16
to
Bill Turlock
Jul 24, 2016, 2:17:15 PM7/24/16
to
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 17:13:33 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>[snippeth]
>
>>>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
>>>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
>>>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
>>>> a good movie. i
>
>And let's not forget that the most well known
>version of The Wizard of Oz, featuring Liza
>("with a Z") Minelli's mom, of 1939, is a remake
>of earlier ones.
TYIDNKT
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>[snippeth]
>
>>>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
>>>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
>>>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
>>>> a good movie. i
>
>And let's not forget that the most well known
>version of The Wizard of Oz, featuring Liza
>("with a Z") Minelli's mom, of 1939, is a remake
>of earlier ones.
Lesmond
Jul 24, 2016, 2:50:03 PM7/24/16
to
Howard
Jul 24, 2016, 5:08:02 PM7/24/16
to
danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote :
> [snippeth]
>
>>>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
>>>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
>>>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
>>>> a good movie. i
>
> And let's not forget that the most well known
> version of The Wizard of Oz, featuring Liza
> ("with a Z") Minelli's mom, of 1939, is a remake
> of earlier ones.
Speaking of Liza Minelli, I have to say that resurrection of Arrested
Development a few years ago wasn't as good as the earlier run.
> [snippeth]
>
>>>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
>>>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
>>>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
>>>> a good movie. i
>
> And let's not forget that the most well known
> version of The Wizard of Oz, featuring Liza
> ("with a Z") Minelli's mom, of 1939, is a remake
> of earlier ones.
Development a few years ago wasn't as good as the earlier run.
Bob
Jul 24, 2016, 5:41:49 PM7/24/16
to
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 1:13:34 PM UTC-4, danny burstein wrote:
> [snippeth]
>
> >>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
> >>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
> >>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
> >>> a good movie. i
>
> And let's not forget that the most well known
> version of The Wizard of Oz, featuring Liza
> ("with a Z") Minelli's mom, of 1939, is a remake
> of earlier ones.
> --
Is there actually enough material taken from the previous movies to say it was a remake of any or all of them, rather than simply a new adaptation of the story?
> [snippeth]
>
> >>> I'm happy to go along with the idea that Hollywood screws up lots of
> >>> remakes -- Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was garbage. But it can
> >>> also do good jobs recycling stuff -- the 2011 Planet of the Apes was
> >>> a good movie. i
>
> And let's not forget that the most well known
> version of The Wizard of Oz, featuring Liza
> ("with a Z") Minelli's mom, of 1939, is a remake
> of earlier ones.
> --
Opus the Penguin
Jul 26, 2016, 2:08:24 AM7/26/16
to
Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
> There were various and sundry and perfectly fine movie versions of Romeo
> and Juliet before Bernstein decided to turn crumhorns into bongos. I
> think there were a few other changes too.
Like the part where Romeo doesn't commit suicide and Juliet doesn't die at
> There were various and sundry and perfectly fine movie versions of Romeo
> and Juliet before Bernstein decided to turn crumhorns into bongos. I
> think there were a few other changes too.
all.
Opus the Penguin
Jul 26, 2016, 2:08:25 AM7/26/16
to
Peregrine
Jul 26, 2016, 4:27:53 AM7/26/16
to
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:04:28 AM UTC-5, John Mc. wrote:
> I think one can have a "message" and still have a good film. I enjoy the
> film "Local Hero" immensely. But it's a movie with a message. I think the
> problem begins when the writer/director lets getting the message across
> take over center stage. Make the film entertaining THEN worry about your
> message.
Yes, and don't beat the message into the ground. Viewers will get it the first time, or they won't.
> I think one can have a "message" and still have a good film. I enjoy the
> film "Local Hero" immensely. But it's a movie with a message. I think the
> problem begins when the writer/director lets getting the message across
> take over center stage. Make the film entertaining THEN worry about your
> message.
Peregrine
John Mc.
Jul 26, 2016, 7:45:35 AM7/26/16
to
John Mc.
Howard
Jul 26, 2016, 9:23:29 AM7/26/16
to
> Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There were various and sundry and perfectly fine movie versions of
>> Romeo and Juliet before Bernstein decided to turn crumhorns into
>> bongos. I think there were a few other changes too.
>
> Like the part where Romeo doesn't commit suicide and Juliet doesn't
> die at all.
You could say she died twice, once by drowning, and then she died this past
>
>> There were various and sundry and perfectly fine movie versions of
>> Romeo and Juliet before Bernstein decided to turn crumhorns into
>> bongos. I think there were a few other changes too.
>
> Like the part where Romeo doesn't commit suicide and Juliet doesn't
> die at all.
Sunday:
http://nyti.ms/29UuIIy
Snidely
Jul 27, 2016, 2:36:49 AM7/27/16
to
John Mc. explained on 7/26/2016 :
> Exactly.
Huh?
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Huh?
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
John Mc.
Jul 29, 2016, 9:21:44 PM7/29/16
to
John Mc.
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Aug 7, 2016, 5:38:22 PM8/7/16
to
>> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying
>> -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of
>> mocking of men is really mild.
>
> I just read about this reaction the other day and was equally mystified.
>> -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of
>> mocking of men is really mild.
>
> If I'm understanding correctly, casting women in those roles is
> "pandering" to a female (and SJW) audience. But casting men in those
> roles would NOT be pandering to a male (and Gamergate) audience.
I think that the argument would be that remaking it with men would be
too pointless to rise to the level of pandering. Uninspired remakes are
not immune from criticism, but criticizing them for pandering rather
than being uninspired would be rather odd.
Xho
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Aug 7, 2016, 5:43:20 PM8/7/16
to
On 07/22/16 08:02, Howard wrote:
>> employ to make the opposite point. But these mooks appear to be
>> serious.
>
> One thing I read is that some people claimed the complaints about the
> new Ghostbusters had nothing whatsoever to do with women leads, just a
> complaint about the Hollywood remake culture. But the way this movie
> became such a target of a group who didn't attack other remakes makes it
> pretty clear that's a bogus complaint.
People criticize remakes all the time. If you hadn't heard of such
criticism, perhaps that is because until now it was not actually
controversial to do so.
Xho
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
>>> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any
>>> kind of mocking of men is really mild.
>>
>> I just read about this reaction the other day and was equally
>> mystified. If I'm understanding correctly, casting women in those
>> roles is "pandering" to a female (and SJW) audience. But casting men
>> in those roles would NOT be pandering to a male (and Gamergate)
>> audience. At times it reads like the sort of subtle irony I might
>
>> Howard <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is
>>> mystifying -- while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any
>>> kind of mocking of men is really mild.
>>
>> I just read about this reaction the other day and was equally
>> mystified. If I'm understanding correctly, casting women in those
>> roles is "pandering" to a female (and SJW) audience. But casting men
>> in those roles would NOT be pandering to a male (and Gamergate)
>> employ to make the opposite point. But these mooks appear to be
>> serious.
>
> One thing I read is that some people claimed the complaints about the
> new Ghostbusters had nothing whatsoever to do with women leads, just a
> complaint about the Hollywood remake culture. But the way this movie
> became such a target of a group who didn't attack other remakes makes it
> pretty clear that's a bogus complaint.
People criticize remakes all the time. If you hadn't heard of such
criticism, perhaps that is because until now it was not actually
controversial to do so.
Xho
Howard
Aug 7, 2016, 8:37:44 PM8/7/16
to
Ghostbusters and gave it zero on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes before it even
came out also give the same ratings to all of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_A-M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_N-Z
Or I'll be charitable and say that Ghostbusters was an awakening and now
they're complaining about all these:
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/remakes/36637/109-movie-remakes-and-
reboots-currently-in-the-works
Or even 20 of those?
Maybe you really do look like these guys:
http://www.billboard.com/files/media/depeche-mode-field-1987-billboard-
650.jpg
and feel comfortable throwing out formulations how People are People and
they're all the same and all that.
But my guess is that you know that most of the people who whined about
Ghostbusters before it came out were, you know, stupid Gamergate types
who would love it if Zach Snyder did another Batman vs. Superman.
Lesmond
Aug 8, 2016, 2:20:02 AM8/8/16
to
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
Aug 8, 2016, 3:22:19 AM8/8/16
to
On 08/07/16 17:37, Howard wrote:
> Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/22/16 08:02, Howard wrote:
>
>>> One thing I read is that some people claimed the complaints about the
>>> new Ghostbusters had nothing whatsoever to do with women leads, just
>>> a complaint about the Hollywood remake culture. But the way this
>>> movie became such a target of a group who didn't attack other remakes
>>> makes it pretty clear that's a bogus complaint.
>>
>> People criticize remakes all the time. If you hadn't heard of such
>> criticism, perhaps that is because until now it was not actually
>> controversial to do so.
>
> I wonder what the odds are that the people who were whining about
> Ghostbusters and gave it zero on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes before it even
> came out also give the same ratings to all of these?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_A-M
Of the ones I've heard of, for most of them the only reason I have heard
> Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/22/16 08:02, Howard wrote:
>
>>> One thing I read is that some people claimed the complaints about the
>>> new Ghostbusters had nothing whatsoever to do with women leads, just
>>> a complaint about the Hollywood remake culture. But the way this
>>> movie became such a target of a group who didn't attack other remakes
>>> makes it pretty clear that's a bogus complaint.
>>
>> People criticize remakes all the time. If you hadn't heard of such
>> criticism, perhaps that is because until now it was not actually
>> controversial to do so.
>
> I wonder what the odds are that the people who were whining about
> Ghostbusters and gave it zero on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes before it even
> came out also give the same ratings to all of these?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_A-M
of them is due to the complaints.
Xho
dilbert firestorm
Aug 20, 2016, 11:38:41 PM8/20/16
to
On 7/21/2016 8:40 PM, Howard wrote:
> I saw it yesterday, and it's pretty good. It's not a start to finish
> laughathon, but it's fun and well done. The four leads are very good and
> Chris (Thor) Hemsworth is really funny as a very dim bulb.
>
> I think it sags a bit after the gang catches their first ghost, and the
> main antagonist is really weakly fleshed out, which tends to lower the
> tension and fun somewhat -- I think the leads would have been more
> entertaining reacting against a more interesting challenge. But overall
> it's quick and smart and funny -- it's light on its feet.
> about the world becoming too sensitive are, of course, being vastly too
> sensitive themselves. (I realize that a lot of the upset is just cynically
> and insincerely manufactured outrage, but that's a whole other story.)
didn't see it. heard it was pretty bad.
I think it had to more to do with the gender swapping, the cast being
ill-chosen for the role, and it wasn't very original.
I think the reboot wasn't necessary. could have made it next generation
of ghostbusters. but thats' hollywood for ya.
--
Dilbert Firestorm
remove *byteme* to email me
> I saw it yesterday, and it's pretty good. It's not a start to finish
> laughathon, but it's fun and well done. The four leads are very good and
> Chris (Thor) Hemsworth is really funny as a very dim bulb.
>
> I think it sags a bit after the gang catches their first ghost, and the
> main antagonist is really weakly fleshed out, which tends to lower the
> tension and fun somewhat -- I think the leads would have been more
> entertaining reacting against a more interesting challenge. But overall
> it's quick and smart and funny -- it's light on its feet.
>
> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying --
> while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of mocking of
> men is really mild. The obvious point here is that people who complain
> The controversy of mens rights types hating on the movie is mystifying --
> while it definitely has a pro-female point of view, any kind of mocking of
> about the world becoming too sensitive are, of course, being vastly too
> sensitive themselves. (I realize that a lot of the upset is just cynically
> and insincerely manufactured outrage, but that's a whole other story.)
didn't see it. heard it was pretty bad.
I think it had to more to do with the gender swapping, the cast being
ill-chosen for the role, and it wasn't very original.
I think the reboot wasn't necessary. could have made it next generation
of ghostbusters. but thats' hollywood for ya.
--
Dilbert Firestorm
remove *byteme* to email me
0 new messages