Yup, absolutely on point and an especially interesting observation on background characters having nothing to draw from. Can't blame the actors as much as the direction in that case, again just as Plinkett observed.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mr Plinkett reviews Ghostbusters (2016)
- Thread starter jack_package_200
- Start date
Yup, absolutely on point and an especially interesting observation on background characters having nothing to draw from. Can't blame the actors as much as the direction in that case, again just as Plinkett observed.
Nah, I don't think it's any kind of intellectual dishonesty, it just means you can enjoy something and also be accepting of the fact that the movie has flaws.
yeah pretty much
I also tend to draw a distinction between consumable entertainment products and art but that does get into a lot of grey areas on a case by case basis
Inferno313
Banned
Sure, but every single piece of art ever has some kind of flaws. It just feels like an attempt to fit in, in a way. "I like Tron Legacy, guys. B-but don't worry, I still agree with the consensus that it's bad!"
Like, to continue on with that example, I do like Tron Legacy quite a bit. I also agree with every single piece of criticism regarding it's narrative and storytelling at the same time. However, it ultimately did work for me due to the clarity of vision regarding the audio-visual experience of the film. I'm not about to deny how I felt about the film in anyway. I liked it, I think it's "good." Not great, not perfect, but good. That's similar to how I feel about Ghostbusters. When it comes to art, there is no objective "good" and "bad." There's just how you felt about it. That's why, to me, it feels weird to say that a film can work for you, but also be 'bad.' Like, what metric are you using to quantify it's 'badness' if not your own personal reaction? That's what I mean by intellectual dishonesty.
Hope that makes sense, in a way. It's early. I need my morning coffee.
That's the MO of most fast food restaurants.
Tron Legacy wasn't bad though!
What? I love plenty of movies because they are so bad. When I saw Lucy at the theater I loved every second of it's stupidity. I share a similar love for The Chronicles of Riddick. In no world would I claim either of these are good movies.
A lot of people are incapable of this. My ex would never admit anything she liked was bad. This is why you get people defending bad movies like this to the bitter end. They take it as a personal affront like you are arguing that they didn't actually enjoy the experience. No one is trying to tell someone they didn't enjoy something.
Exactly. Look at something like The Room, or Samurai Cop. Movies that don't even work as movies they're so badly made, but they're still enjoyable and fascinating to watch. I would never say either of those two movies are good in any sense of the word, but I enjoy them all the same.
Inferno313
Banned
That's my point! Tron Legacy worked for you, thus you don't think it's a bad film. And yet it has a lower tomatometer and metascore than the "bad" film this thread is about. Does that mean your opinion is invalid? No. It's your genuine reaction to the film. Does that mean the critics' opinions are invalid? No. They're their genuine reactions to the film. There's no such thing as objective "good" and "bad" in art. Simply consensus and norms.
To me, if I enjoyed the experience of watching a film, it's ultimately a "good" film in my eyes. Doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws. But I can't deny my personal reaction.
You could also take all the criticisms of something into consideration and realize "OK, I admit this movie wasn't very good, but I still enjoyed it." It's a much more honest place to begin discussion because no one is trying to convince you that you didn't enjoy something.
Inferno313
Banned
What if I disagree with the criticisms though? What if I agree with them, but still felt the film worked in spite of the criticisms? Criticisms aren't, usually, facts. They're someone else's opinions.
My point is just, don't let things like consensus and groupthink affect how you feel about art, even corporatized studio-mandated art like Ghostbusters. Don't think this shit is binary, that "good" and "bad" are objective qualities of a work. Educate yourself on the medium, study the medium, learn the medium, of course! But form your own opinions, trust your own feelings and reactions, but also trust that others aren't not doing the same. When a friend loves a film that I hated, or vice-versa, that's not a challenge or affront to my personal reaction, it's a conversation-starter. It's impossible to be "wrong" about your feelings on art.
Then you don't have any interest in discussing criticisms of things you enjoy. I'm not sure where useful discussion comes from if that's your starting position. "I enjoyed it, so it doesn't matter what you say about it even if I agree with your criticisms, but I'm going to post in the discussion forum anyway." Where does anyone that wants to discuss it with you take it from there? My ex was the same way, so talking about anything she liked was a dead end for conversation unless you agreed with her.
That's actually a conversation ender. If it's impossible for you to be wrong then there is no room for discussion other than agreement.
Inferno313
Banned
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I literally ended that post with a statement that agrees with exactly what you've said: "When a friend loves a film that I hated, or vice-versa, that's not a challenge or affront to my personal reaction, it's a conversation-starter. It's impossible to be "wrong" about your feelings on art."
Talking about films is, literally, my favorite thing. I didn't spend 4 years in film school because I can't handle divergent opinions. I'm arguing in favor of divergent opinions.
That's only true if you think the purpose of discussing films is to convince the other person why you're right and they're wrong.
Whether you like something (or not) is separate from a critical analysis. The RLM review is a critical analysis. Gb2016 does not hold up well to a critical analysis.
That doesn't mean lots of people can't (or shouldn't) like it. Equally though people who are merely talking about liking or disliking it shouldn't compare that to a critical analysis that essentially sees how well the film holds up stress tested against best standards of the medium.
It's not some awful travesty but it is - critically - pretty average and in many areas fairly mediocre as a film.
Think of watching a ball game. It could be a classic and one of the best ever: and you could enjoy it. It could be a pretty mediocre game though: and you could still enjoy it. People who undertstand the game technically though are mostly going to note the difference between the classic and the mediocre game irrespective of whether they liked the game or not.
Yeah. Brief moment of letting it all get to me. Business as usual.
I think it's fair to say that anyone who's starting position is always "My opinion can never be wrong" is not a person most people are going want to talk to much about the things they are opinionated on.
I liked the review but I found the hand-wringing about the "offensive" jokes in the opening part of the 2016 movie really forced. Like, I can't really believe RLM guys were offended by it. There were plenty of valid things to rag on the movie about and they seemed to add this on just because.
Inferno313
Banned
GitarooMan
Member
I'm glad he called out Bill Murray at the end.
Yeah, other than a couple of good movies i have no idea why he is so big and well liked by the fan base . He also seems like a huge asshole if the stories about working with him are true.
Inferno313
Banned
Oh man. Lost in Translation? Broken Flowers? Any number of his Wes Anderson collaborations including Rushmore, The Life Aquatic, Moonrise Kingdom? Stripes? Caddyshack? Ed Wood? Shit, even Scrooged is a decent holiday watch.
Dude has a long career full of quality performances in quality films.
CloudyTuba
Member
Finally got around to this. The first 20 minutes was aimless rambling but then he gets it together and starts making sense.
Generally accurate assessment. In spite of all the accusations people were eager to make, he praises the actors and supports their casting while placing the blame on piss poor direction and editing. The defining failure of this movie was lack of contrast and contrast is comedy.
A bunch of folk in the other thread were salivating over the idea of this being controversial but in reality it's very fair. Apparently that isn't stopping some people here from trying to start something anyway, though.
It wasn't as hard hitting or thorough as his more famous reviews but it sums up the problems well enough. Most of what was said has already been said a thousand times so I imagine this video was more for entertainment value and fan appeasement than it was for anything else and that's fine.
Generally accurate assessment. In spite of all the accusations people were eager to make, he praises the actors and supports their casting while placing the blame on piss poor direction and editing. The defining failure of this movie was lack of contrast and contrast is comedy.
A bunch of folk in the other thread were salivating over the idea of this being controversial but in reality it's very fair. Apparently that isn't stopping some people here from trying to start something anyway, though.
It wasn't as hard hitting or thorough as his more famous reviews but it sums up the problems well enough. Most of what was said has already been said a thousand times so I imagine this video was more for entertainment value and fan appeasement than it was for anything else and that's fine.
Yeah, that may be true....still don't like him.
Papa John's was prominently placed throughout the film.
It was especially ridiculous considering New York City has some of the best pizzerias in the world.
Vital Tundra
Member
The part about Kristen Wig is really baffling to me. Sony Pictures is so incompetent.
Paul Feig had Papa John's in mind before the script was even written!
Sectorseven
Member
I don't recall it either, although I was drifting in and out.
I saw it in commercials and assumed it was just a tie-in promotion, not part of the film itself.
Hard to believe I spent an hour watching a video delivering strong justification as to why I should not watch a movie I had no interest in seeing in the first place. But mission accomplished. It was an entertaining and inciteful watch.
Actually a shame as those girls are proven to be very talented and were sadly saddled to a project filled with poor planning and judgement calls.
I do recall the internet did go kind of apeshit last summer over it. Among the numerous reasons that audiences rejected the film after seeing it, that was rather up there. Man of Steel was the last time I recall such an explosive angry mob decried a film with blatant ad space to the same degree.
Actually a shame as those girls are proven to be very talented and were sadly saddled to a project filled with poor planning and judgement calls.
I do recall the internet did go kind of apeshit last summer over it. Among the numerous reasons that audiences rejected the film after seeing it, that was rather up there. Man of Steel was the last time I recall such an explosive angry mob decried a film with blatant ad space to the same degree.
MilkyJoe
Member
Not that I was going to, but I'm double glad I never paid to see this.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
I didn't see 2016 but I noticed everything was constantly popping towards the screen, was the movie heavily 3d? I get really annoyed when I notice stuff like that.
Admiral Woofington
Member
You may have not noticed it personally
But your brain did
QuantumZebra
Member
I haven't had time to watch it honestly, been sick and working as much as I can. Will probably this weekend when I'm clear-headed.
I can imagine its probably an exaggeration of the "greatness" of GB1 and the "heinousness" of GB2016. Like there is some massive gulf between the films.
Ghostbusters is a horror (sci fi?) film with a comedy layer.
Ghostbusters 2016 is a comedy film with a horror layer.
They're two completely different films. GB2016 is supposed to be an off-the-cuff, ad-lib movie, its Feig's style. There's nothing wrong with that. As reviews and box office showed (even though it grossed practically as much as GB1 and Sony porked the fuck out of its budget, so probably lost money).
And I loved Ghostbusters 2 as a kid, but anyone saying its better than GB2016 is out of their fucking minds, or just obsessed with the original crew and blind to all else.
*I don't know where you're getting the opinion = fact thing about me from but I would never make such a blind statement... when I said it in the other thread was a direct joke at another poster and I even stated that later
This ^^^ also
I can recognize that I think Jurassic World is a shit film while at the same time knowing most people enjoyed it (I think? not sure anymore).
I can also recognize I love Johnny Mnemonic where most think its a shit film. It's great schlocky cyberpunk. I'll die on that hill.
I don't doubt it. The Papa's got deep, deep pockets.
I'd have dismissed the product placement argument with a sentence or two. It's low-hanging fruit in Ghostbusters the Lesser. You could have just had Plinkett wonder what would motivate these savvy New York women to choose cardboard over real pizza in a city known for its great pizzerias.
Ghostbusters 2 is a disappointingly lazy retread that I can still somewhat enjoy, since it still makes me laugh several times thanks to some inspired gags (amongst some lesser ones, everything with Louis in the third act ehhh).
Ghostbusters 2016 didn't make me laugh once and was utterly insufferable to sit through. Guess I'm out of my fucking mind then
I haven't had time to watch it honestly, been sick and working as much as I can. Will probably this weekend when I'm clear-headed.
I can imagine its probably an exaggeration of the "greatness" of GB1 and the "heinousness" of GB2016. Like there is some massive gulf between the films.
Ghostbusters is a horror (sci fi?) film with a comedy layer.
Ghostbusters 2016 is a comedy film with a horror layer.
They're two completely different films. GB2016 is supposed to be an off-the-cuff, ad-lib movie, its Feig's style. There's nothing wrong with that. As reviews and box office showed (even though it grossed practically as much as GB1 and Sony porked the fuck out of its budget, so probably lost money).
And I loved Ghostbusters 2 as a kid, but anyone saying its better than GB2016 is out of their fucking minds, or just obsessed with the original crew and blind to all else.
*I don't know where you're getting the opinion = fact thing about me from but I would never make such a blind statement... when I said it in the other thread was a direct joke at another poster and I even stated that later
well I look forward to your thoughts. your posts from the other thread are what I thought of when they started comparing and contrasting the old movie with the reboot. he does a really good job of showing why the original film works and contrasts it to why the reboot falls on its face.
also
"And I loved Ghostbusters 2 as a kid, but anyone saying its better than GB2016 is out of their fucking minds, or just obsessed with the original crew and blind to all else."
whew, nah. fiction.
Inferno313
Banned
Spy, Bridesmaids, and Freaks and Geeks are all fucking great.
chekhonte
Member
I don't understand the need for a 58 minute amateur tear down of a mediocre hollywood movie. Are random references in place of jokes supposed to be funny still? He keeps saying "what is this 2006?" well it does beg the question.
Any time I watch a review where the reviewer just shits on the movie I ask myself if the review is better, more clever, funnier, or more entertaining than the movie it's shitting on and the answer is almost invariably no.
Any time I watch a review where the reviewer just shits on the movie I ask myself if the review is better, more clever, funnier, or more entertaining than the movie it's shitting on and the answer is almost invariably no.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
That's it. I'm having some Papa Johns this weekend.
Skiptastic
Member
I'm pretty sure they weren't offended by it, but noting that the off-putting jokes start the film, setting the tone for the rest of the film. They compared 1984 GB where it wasn't funny but a bit spooky vs. 2016 GB where it was bad, weird jokes.
Heckler456
Banned
RLM isn't really just another "amateur" movie teardown/review. They might as well be OG when it comes to that.
Anyway, not all the way through, but this has been way more even-handed and fair that I thought it would be going into it.
Nah, a half-assed Murray or Akyroyd performance already trumps anything the 2016 movie did. They still delivered lines with great comedic timing even if the plot and story was pretty garbage. Nothing in the latest movie even touches the courtroom scene now that I think about it.
Hell, the opening birthday party scene alone is exactly what the Plinkett vid says the original film does right and they continued that trend - average joes struggling to make ends meet with shit jobs. Sure, it went nuts and over-the-top with a walking Statue of Liberty but you had moments that worked around the ghostbusting/sci-fi stuff that still makes it funny.
Admiral Woofington
Member
The chruch of Murray
oh god
Inferno313
Banned
They're certainly not amateurs at making videos 10 times longer than they need to be, I'll give them that.
Nekketsu Kõha
Banned
The amount of salt in this thread smh.
Admiral Woofington
Member
you're saying that like us fans don't see a 50 minute video of theirs and get chubbys.
The longer the video the better.
Inferno313
Banned
Nekketsu Kõha;245849594 said:
Not salt. I just think their videos are way too long for the amount of actual coherent points given within.
They could cover the same ground in 10 minutes, and it'd be a better piece.