Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Honestly, I'm enough of a Kate McKinnon fan that I'd see this even if I'd never heard of Ghostbusters before. Kristen Wiig is always great in everything, even in her more straight roles like The Martian & The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. If anything gives me pause, it's Melissa McCarthy, who can be very hit & miss. And what good is Leslie Jones if she doesn't have Colin Jost to flirt with? 
Wiig was wasted in The Martian. Nothing against her, the script just gave her nothing special to do. She was just there. For what little it required, the part could have been played by basically anyone.
In one of the videos I posted, the anonymous 4chan poster remarks that if the new movie bombs, Sony's plans for the franchise could experience a setback of ten to twenty years.
It's not like there's no precedent, either. It took eight years for Warners to recover from Batman and Robin.
Maybe that's what Chris Hemsworth is for.And what good is Leslie Jones if she doesn't have Colin Jost to flirt with?
It amazes me how eager people are to issue postmortems for movies that haven't even come out yet.
That's okay, it amazes me when someone tells everyone that a trailer is a commercial meant to spin a movie in the best way possible to entice potential audiences, then acts flabbergasted and confused (and holier-than-thou) when the commercial utterly fails and drives potential audiences away. Doubly so when they then state that the commercial meant to spin a movie in the best way possible wasn't actually a commercial meant to spin a movie in the best way possible... because New Reasons™ that are ten times more stupid than the perfectly valid (and numerous) complaints the people turned off by said commercial have.
Last edited:
Nobodies saying that. What people here are saying is that it's silly to condemn a movie based on 2 minutes of (out of context) footage. If you don't like the trailer that's fine, not every trailer ever cut is a winner, but it doesn't mean the movie is going to be terrible because of it's trailer.
Actually, yes, people are saying that. Christopher in particular. He literally said those things, though not verbatim.
And no, it's not irrational or silly to condemn a product when the commercial sucks as badly as that one sucked, especially when it's pretty much all you have to go on. In fact, that's the definition of rational. What's actually irrational is believing that it's going to miraculously be the most awesome and wonderful thing ever despite evidence to the contrary. Doubly so when you then proceed to repeatedly and exhaustively tell them they're being "silly" or flat-out wrong for actually taking said evidence into consideration when forming their opinions, as opposed to people like yourself who seem to subsist on gumdrops and rainbows of positivity.
(Unless, of course, you don't like something. Then it becomes a serious, well-thought out and reasonable critique instead. Because, you know, you're better than everyone else.)
And no, it's not irrational or silly to condemn a product when the commercial sucks as badly as that one sucked, especially when it's pretty much all you have to go on. In fact, that's the definition of rational. What's actually irrational is believing that it's going to miraculously be the most awesome and wonderful thing ever despite evidence to the contrary. Doubly so when you then proceed to repeatedly and exhaustively tell them they're being "silly" or flat-out wrong for actually taking said evidence into consideration when forming their opinions, as opposed to people like yourself who seem to subsist on gumdrops and rainbows of positivity.
(Unless, of course, you don't like something. Then it becomes a serious, well-thought out and reasonable critique instead. Because, you know, you're better than everyone else.)
Last edited:
I hope you are not a scientist, because you're understanding of rationality and evidence is rather poor. You don't take a small sample size of evidence and because it doesn't look like you want it to in the middle of the experiment, deem that it has failed. You can still be hopeful of the outcome despite what the small sample size might say.
What is rational is to say that while this product might look good or bad from the trailer, it is not enough to say it will be bad. What is rational is saying that I hope the movie will be good despite only seening 2 minutes of it. What is rational is to say, despite the fact that the trailer might not be good, I'll reserve my judgement for the movie itself. Or just not watch it altogether.
I have no idea if it will be good or bad. The trailer was ok, in my opinion, but I'm going to remain hopeful that it will turn out decent. Not just automatically assume it will be bad based on the short sample size.
I won't lie. I didn't even realise it was her until this second..but I don't follow actors so much these days.
I hope you are not a scientist, because you're understanding of rationality and evidence is rather poor. You don't take a small sample size of evidence and because it doesn't look like you want it to in the middle of the experiment, deem that it has failed. You can still be hopeful of the outcome despite what the small sample size might say.
What is rational is to say that while this product might look good or bad from the trailer, it is not enough to say it will be bad. What is rational is saying that I hope the movie will be good despite only seening 2 minutes of it. What is rational is to say, despite the fact that the trailer might not be good, I'll reserve my judgement for the movie itself. Or just not watch it altogether.
I have no idea if it will be good or bad. The trailer was ok, in my opinion, but I'm going to remain hopeful that it will turn out decent. Not just automatically assume it will be bad based on the short sample size.
It's not a small sample of evidence though is it, it's more or less all the evidence there currently is. 'based on current understanding' as it were. Which, does make it rational, following that logic.
If the film was available, judging it purely by its trailer, (and especially if it was freely available pretty much like it will be x years down the line when shown on TV) would be less rational. But as it it stands, using all currently available evidence (mostly the trailer) some people think it will suck. So it's as scientific as any opinion currently held can be. And is rational.
Now I am not just saying this because I happen to think the film may turn out to be poop, but because it's not great to accuse opposing views as not understanding the concept of 'rational'.
Hope is irrational. (I think Jimmy T K said as much once.) I hope the film is good.
Rationally, based on all available evidence at this time.....it probably won't be.
Let's find out.
OH! I see. it's okay to assume that it's going to turn out decent, but it's not okay to assume that it isn't. (Because, you know, your opinion is all that matters and anyone who doesn't share it is wrong and irrational.)
I gotcha know. You guys are just all about hypocrisy. <thumbs up> Carry on.
Again, you really don't understand what people are saying. No one is assuming that it will be good. They are hoping. You know there is a difference between hope and assumption right?
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, comedy trailers, by and large, tend to suck out loud.
Edit:
Boom, there, you finally admitted it -- because it's not the nostalgia trip with a bunch of sexagenarians that you want, that's why the movie will suck. Was that so hard?
Edit:
Boom, there, you finally admitted it -- because it's not the nostalgia trip with a bunch of sexagenarians that you want, that's why the movie will suck. Was that so hard?
Judging on small sample size is often irrational, despite the fact that most of us, myself included, do it all the time. For instance, the Divergent movie series looks like crap to me, and I have no desire to see it based on the trailers. Is it my right to do so? It sure is. Is it totally rational to do so with just a trailer to go by. Not really. However I at least acknowledge the irrationality of my judgement.
Similar threads
