Re: Ghostbusters reboot: We're (almost, maybe, sorta) ready to believe
Dude. You said that Ebert called it a chick flick, which is flat out wrong, full stop. You've chosen to interpret what he said in a certain way, which is arguably reasonable, but that doesn't give veracity to your mischaracterization of what he actually wrote. And, there are other ways, also arguably reasonable to interpret what he said about being a cross between two genres as well; by way of illustration, a liger is neither a lion nor a tiger. Furthermore, he used the word "attempt" which admits the possibility of failure, including a failure to succeed at being either of the two things being crossed.
No. He said is was an "attempt to cross the Chick Flick with the Raunch Comedy."Allow me to recap: Ebert called it a chick flick.
Arg, Cyke101 beat me to it!
Sooo he IS inferring that Bridesmaids is a chick flick.
If Bridesmaids is a "cross" between a chick flick and a raunch comedy, then it is a chick flick.
Logicially speaking.
By the way, that means you and Cyke are wrong to say I'm wrong.![]()
Dude. You said that Ebert called it a chick flick, which is flat out wrong, full stop. You've chosen to interpret what he said in a certain way, which is arguably reasonable, but that doesn't give veracity to your mischaracterization of what he actually wrote. And, there are other ways, also arguably reasonable to interpret what he said about being a cross between two genres as well; by way of illustration, a liger is neither a lion nor a tiger. Furthermore, he used the word "attempt" which admits the possibility of failure, including a failure to succeed at being either of the two things being crossed.