Post: #626

(07-14-2016 07:05 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 06:58 AM)Mr. D Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 03:23 AM)Matsufubu Wrote:  Is any one of us volunteering to see it and post a review? There are a lot of awful-to-mediocre ones that's I've read/seen from all sources, but I wouldn't mind seeing one from our own community, just to get the full horror story.

I don't think anyone would voluntarily drop an anvil on their balls.

And, as stated before, it might be better if we don't address this. Let it sink on its own weight. (possible pun not intended)

Perhaps an analytical take on the fail later on, but not a review.

A ROK writer should go see it and write an extensive review on it. But that is a professional visit similarly to a reporter who visits a slaughterhouse. You expect horrors, but someone has to do it.

Yeah, this is a better idea.

The Spiderman gif was perfect, thanks Merc.

Post: #627

Another Blue Pill guy who hated the movie. And he wanted to like it when he went out to watch it.

Post: #628

I just tried to find a torrent to see if anyone was seeding it but there is not 1 person!

Looks like no one wants waste their money on this movie!

Post: #629

No theaters were full enough to hide the recording.

It wasn't a thing when I worked in a theater 20 yrs ago, but I'm sure they have ushers checking for that now.

Post: #630

I collected the positive reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and negative reviews from IMDB to get an overall consensus in this video.

Post: #631

Someone (on another forum) was 'stunning & brave' :

Quote:I took my girlfriend to go see it today cause there weren't any new movies out
I think melissa McCarthy can be funny so i tried to be as open minded as possible but the jokes were way to predictable & it was just really unfunny. If the ghost were a little less scary this movie could be almost G rated

- pauljohn

Post: #632

As predicted the user reviews are abysmal on rottentomatoes. A 44% when critics give it a ridiculous 76%. Certified fresh my ass.

This is how you know if a movie will be garbage or not. Just look at the difference in user and critic scores. Critics tend to boost movies that are pretentious nonsense or they are outright paid off by studios to promote the film.

Post: #633

What a proper Ghostbusters film should look like (just one idea):

1. Bill Murray
2. Bill Burr
3. Charlie Murphy
4. Woody Harrelson

Support roles from Hudson and Ackroyd.

So much potential.

Post: #634

(07-14-2016 06:36 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Ghostbusters denied release in China

Ghostbusters in line for China ban due to supernatural theme

Banned: Why Ghostbusters won't be busting anything in China

Here's Why Ghostbusters Will Not Be Released In China

Why the new 'Ghostbusters' is banned in China

WB that last one

wait this is a thread about Ghostbusters 3 never mind

Post: #635

I just saw Melissa McCarthy being interviewed on a daytime talk show -- I didn't notice which show. But I was really surprised by how obese she is. I'd never paid much attention.

Granted, I'd seen her in passing. But looking at her sitting there on the couch talking it struck me that she's actually fatter than some of my old Italian aunts. These were HUGE women who used to scare me as a kid because they were so big.

Who would *pay* to see that? Honestly, what kind of person pays money to go into a theater to see what I used to avoid? As a kid I remember doing anything *not* to see the oversized thighs, the "hanging" upper arms, and the freakishly big butt.

One bit of trivia that not a lot of people know is that in the original 1984 "Ghostbusters" a pre-fame Debbie Gibson makes a brief appearance during the birthday party scene.

Gibson still looks great NOW. Better, in fact, then she did when she was a teenager. And she can act. Why didn't someone think to get her in this movie, if only as a cameo?

If anyone wants any proof that past eras were better, well, this is what became of the teen pop icon of my generation. The fatasses in this movie are all younger and don't look half as good.

Post: #636

If the film costs 144M to make, and they spent another 100M on advertising, and it will probably gross about, I don't know, 80M worldwide(most of it coming the first weekend), does that mean we will not see a ghostbusters 2?

Post: #637

(07-15-2016 05:59 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  What a proper Ghostbusters film should look like (just one idea):
...
Bill Burr


So much potential.

Oh man, Bill Burr as a Ghostbuster makes so much sense! Perfect role for him!

Post: #638

(07-15-2016 11:53 AM)eradicator Wrote:  If the film costs 144M to make, and they spent another 100M on advertising, and it will probably gross about, I don't know, 80M worldwide(most of it coming the first weekend), does that mean we will not see a ghostbusters 2?

Probably not. At the end of the day the businessmen behind it aren't completely stupid. They won't fund another feminist vanity project if it burns a big fat hole in their wallet. They probably greenlit it only because Feig has a solid track record of making money.

A few of these duds can bankrupt a studio it has happened before and i'm sure it will happen again.

Post: #639

The Washington Post gave the movie three out of four stars in its official review. But, notice that they gave the review to their more liberal, female reviewer who of course, would be more likely to give the movie the benefit of the doubt. Notice she disparages the "haters" in the review.

If you look at RottenTomatoes, the movie ratings are 75%, but fall to 57% from the "top critics" who are the critics less likely to be willing to damage their reputations and credibility by shilling for political correctness. The audience score is 45%. So, as we all knew would happen, the media is trying to dishonestly promote this movie.

Post: #640

Has a pointless remake ever been this celebrated by film critics? They usually tear these films apart. The propaganda machine is growing bolder everyday.

Post: #641

(07-15-2016 11:41 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Gibson still looks great NOW. Better, in fact, then she did when she was a teenager.

WB furiously....while listening to "Only In My Dreams" at full volume.

Post: #642

(07-15-2016 01:46 PM)C-Note Wrote:  The Washington Post gave the movie three out of four stars in its official review. But, notice that they gave the review to their more liberal, female reviewer who of course, would be more likely to give the movie the benefit of the doubt. Notice she disparages the "haters" in the review.

If you look at RottenTomatoes, the movie ratings are 75%, but fall to 57% from the "top critics" who are the critics less likely to be willing to damage their reputations and credibility by shilling for political correctness. The audience score is 45%. So, as we all knew would happen, the media is trying to dishonestly promote this movie.

This Wash Post typist is the worst critic ever. She blamed the Elliot Rodgers shootings on Judd Apatow/Seth Rogan movies. I figured she couldn't say Ghostbusters sucked.

Post: #643

(07-15-2016 11:41 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I just saw Melissa McCarthy being interviewed on a daytime talk show -- I didn't notice which show. But I was really surprised by how obese she is. I'd never paid much attention.

Granted, I'd seen her in passing. But looking at her sitting there on the couch talking it struck me that she's actually fatter than some of my old Italian aunts. These were HUGE women who used to scare me as a kid because they were so big.

Who would *pay* to see that? Honestly, what kind of person pays money to go into a theater to see what I used to avoid? As a kid I remember doing anything *not* to see the oversized thighs, the "hanging" upper arms, and the freakishly big butt.

One bit of trivia that not a lot of people know is that in the original 1984 "Ghostbusters" a pre-fame Debbie Gibson makes a brief appearance during the birthday party scene.

Gibson still looks great NOW. Better, in fact, then she did when she was a teenager. And she can act. Why didn't someone think to get her in this movie, if only as a cameo?

If anyone wants any proof that past eras were better, well, this is what became of the teen pop icon of my generation. The fatasses in this movie are all younger and don't look half as good.

WB

Post: #644

(07-15-2016 11:41 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  One bit of trivia that not a lot of people know is that in the original 1984 "Ghostbusters" a pre-fame Debbie Gibson makes a brief appearance during the birthday party scene.

Gibson still looks great NOW. Better, in fact, then she did when she was a teenager. And she can act. Why didn't someone think to get her in this movie, if only as a cameo?

If anyone wants any proof that past eras were better, well, this is what became of the teen pop icon of my generation. The fatasses in this movie are all younger and don't look half as good.

Ahhh.... Debie Gibson.... one of the more pleasing memories from the eighties...

Post: #645

(07-14-2016 06:36 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Ghostbusters denied release in China

Ghostbusters in line for China ban due to supernatural theme

Banned: Why Ghostbusters won't be busting anything in China

Here's Why Ghostbusters Will Not Be Released In China

Why the new 'Ghostbusters' is banned in China

Films are very rarely banned in China, they just aren't approved for release. China's state broadcasting agency allows a limited number of foreign films to be shown in Chinese theaters each year, only 34 in total annually.

Post: #646

Quote:Ironically, given all the Sturm und Drang over the fact that the Ghostbusters are now ladies, Kevin, a man, is the best, funniest part of the film. His sweet stupidity along with Erin’s semi-creepy fawning over his good looks along with some genuinely clever Abbot and Costello “Who’s on First”-style dialogue during his introduction combine to help him steal the show from the Lady Ghostbusters.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/ghostbusters-review/

Post: #647

What we going to see for the next 5 years is the same bullshit movies that will fail. Just like about 10-15 years ago, you turned the TV on and there was all gay soap shows. They all failed... Just need to ride out the waves! I just glad I don't have kids in the west! How mess up thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable for a woman!

Post: #648

(07-15-2016 11:53 AM)eradicator Wrote:  If the film costs 144M to make, and they spent another 100M on advertising, and it will probably gross about, I don't know, 80M worldwide(most of it coming the first weekend), does that mean we will not see a ghostbusters 2?

140M of which was the catering budget. The special effects might have been cheap. The pork chops weren't.

Post: #649

After this weekend we'll have a better idea of how this film does in the long run.
Unless it gets a cult following...

Post: #650

(07-15-2016 11:34 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  After this weekend we'll have a better idea of how this film does in the long run.
Unless it gets a cult following...

Spoke, I hate to be a grammar nazi but you misspelled cunt.