-
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
Inferno313
Banned
That's not an objective metric. That's your subjective feeling on Hollywood. As has been discussed many times in this thread, calling Ghostbusters "critically reviled" is one thing that actually is demonstrably incorrect.
Their half in the bag review of that great film was bad enough.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
BTW, this review is overly long, spends too much time trying to talk about how OG GB was a masterpiece and they didn't like the type of humor GB16 was using. Also, who really gives a fuck about product placement.
I mean bitching about product placement is like sharp knees level of discourse.
They discounted the homages, like they were a bad thing. They seemed upset it was a reboot instead of a continuation.
They didn't provide much of anything to back anything up. You don't think it's funny, fine. Good for you.
I mean bitching about product placement is like sharp knees level of discourse.
They discounted the homages, like they were a bad thing. They seemed upset it was a reboot instead of a continuation.
They didn't provide much of anything to back anything up. You don't think it's funny, fine. Good for you.
they backed up every point they made, don't know what you watched
what do you feel wasn't sufficiently backed up during the review? maybe I can provide some time stamps for you
Inferno313
Banned
He backed up everything he pointed out.
How is bitching about egregious product placement like that bad? When it gets to the level it did in movies like this or jack and jill, it deserves to be called out.
Inferno313
Banned
Product Placement is usually one of those things that everyone likes to harp on when it's in a movie they already don't like, but no one gives a shit about when it's in a film that they're on board with.
Like Casino Royale is an example of a film that's just as egregious. Yet, no one really gives a shit about it.
he picked scenes from the movie that didn't work, contrasted them with scenes from the original movie to highlight why those worked and why the ones from the new one didn't, re edited scenes to show how they could have been improved upon, pointed out when a joke could have actually been funny but was stepped on immediately, pointed out the flaws in the improv heavy nature of the movie, etc. etc. etc.
but they didn't back up any of their points. nope. none at all.
lugs ears and yells "lalalalalala":
but they didn't back up any of their points. nope. none at all.
lugs ears and yells "lalalalalala":We watched different videos
Having some shots of phones or laptops passing by is not on the level of sitting down eating at papa johns or standing there eating pringels.
James Bond has been one long commercial for awhile now. TMNT, Back to The Future, Minority Report, and many other films were also filled with product placement. It doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.
It's more than that. The drinks, cars, clothes and even some locations are all product placement in modern Bond films.
Stallion Dan
Member
Why go to the effort of making an obvious lie to poorly defend this shitty reboot?
Sixfortyfive
He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
RLM hates pop culture references that serve no function other than being a reference, and exponentially more so when they're used repeatedly.
And it's a fine complaint to have. There's no substance to that kind of stuff beyond "remember this thing that you liked?"
Did Casino Royale drop the tagline of a product in dialogue like this movie did for Pringles?
Serious question. I never watched that movie.
Most of those movies integrate the product placement into the movie in a way that isn't overly distracting. None of those movies, for example, stop themselves to do a Krispy Kreme advertisement like Power Rangers did
Demolition Man and Wayne's World remain the kings of perfect product placement use
I think comparative analysis can be used wrongly most of the time (instead of looking at the "why"- people more try to say one is better than the other and leave it at that without going deeper), but here they're talking about takes on comedy and use the old movie to cite as an example of how to do a broad genre movie as a comedy, something the new one doesn't quite get because it's trying to do a different movie at the same time. Feig somehow managed to pull it off with Spy, but not here. The video even notes that.
It is overly long, though. I don't need padding for Plinkett "humor" even if it is making a point.
Agreed. Though he does note how Sony tends to do it way more, but they are in a different boat than a lot of other studios in terms of branding. I think it says a lot about Sony more than anything, but product placement has been around for freaking ever and bitching about it now to prove something is "bad" is bottom-of-the-barrel nitpicking.
I think most were upset it was a reboot TBH. It took the same format and structure but did it worse (hence the need for a comparison to the original). I don't know what homages you're speaking of. The Cameos? I liked one of them. Maybe two if you want to count a statue.
Comedy is super subjective, sure, but they back up a lot of stuff in how the actors act and how lines are delivered along with how timing in the original allowed a joke to breathe versus the use of timing in the new film (and I'd say new comedies as a whole). I think, if anything and whether you agree with the video or not (I only did half the time) it shows two takes of comedy on the exact same premise and how 30 years ago it was one thing and now it's a lot of noise and needing to constantly throw out lines rather than think of a good line in the first place. If anything, it's educational on that front.
It seemed blatantly clear their criticism was on the execution more so than the fact that it merely featured product placement or was a remake. It was how these decisions were enacted and utilized that became the basis of their argument, and an hour was spent providing evidence to back up their point. They even elicited their own film edits to drive their point home further in situations where mere suggestion isn't enough.
Disagree and provide a cogent counter, not just handwave it all off. Your rebuttal above speaks only to the opening few minutes, did you actually watch the video in full?
Inferno313
Banned
QuantumBro
Banned
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
i wish i had just watched this instead of the movie.
Sixfortyfive
He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
Alright, that's pretty funny.
Tbh though, between stuff like this, GB, The Emoji Movie, Jack and Jill, etc., I think it just adds more fuel to their "Sony Pictures is a dumpster fire" bit.
Yea, well sony loves product placement. He even said in the review that of course there are a few sony gems that make it out of the dumpster.
TheContact
Member
Dude mr plinkett is a character not a real person...
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Like I said before, this movie missed the point on what made the first one a classic.
Inferno313
Banned
Ok? The people who write what he says are. Most of this thread take this to be real criticism.
Someone liked the emoji movie? That sounds like slander, good sir!
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Remember Scarface?
Isaac Otherworld
Member
In the original Half in the Bag for Ghostbusters 2016 Mike even said that TFA was a masterful soft reboot of the franchise that allows the series to continue on while still respecting the fans and the original source material.
QuantumZebra
Member
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
I can see that you are still beating this dead horse in coming into this thread complaining about people beating a dead horse.
Admiral Woofington
Member
Lmao.
"I don't care for the review, now let me come to the thread time and time again disregard discussion and just make it clear I really like this movie and fuck the haters"
Inferno313
Banned
Are people who think the video is good the only ones who are allowed to post in here or something?
Admiral Woofington
Member
No, if you watch the review and want to discuss problems you have with the review itself, there is nothing wrong with that and discussion is welcome.
If you dislike that the video was made to begin and/or refuse to watch the review because x reasons, then this thread isn't for those people since this thread is specifically to discuss the review and its content not its existence or redlettermedia as a whole.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
No, but people complaining about the videos existence is what I meant by my comment. Yes, you can argue about what is in the video, but complaining that the video was made in the first place is different.
Weren't most fans?
I mean the reveal trailer talked about the events of the original like they were cannon going forward.
Then they use the original actors in new roles... they should've went full reboot or full homage, not this wishy washy half & half.
No, but how many times or different ways can you say that you like this movie and don't like RLM? If you have anything new to bring up, then fine. Otherwise you are not helping your points of showing "why RLM sucks".
Merciless
Inferno313
Banned
They did. Trailers aren't canon.
if someone actually watches the review and doesn't like it that's fine. you've been in here discussing with everyone else with no issue.
it's the conclusion jumping before even watching the review and the meta commentary about whether or not the review should even exist that are annoying
They didn't though, how about all new outfits, a new car, new weapons, make it different!
This felt like Superman Returns, a director and cast holding previous films in such high regard they don't do their own thing.
If (let's be honest it's when) they reboot again I hope hey do something new, preferably not set in NY
Pyramid head
Banned
Nah, they did though. An hour's worth of pretty detailed analysis, comparing and contrasting, all of which has been discussed in this thread. If you're either unequipped to undertand the video or just flat out pretending all the above isn't there despite all the discussion there of in this thread then that's on you.
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
Paul Feig just needs to make Spy 2 then all will be redeemed as everyone forgets this movie in 2 years
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I mean, comedy is subjective or whatever, but this review has better comedic timing than the actual film it's reviewing. There's no denying that, because one is all improv bullshit and the other has crafted jokes.
Honestly, yes. I'd love it.
ultracal31
You don't get to bring friends.
Less dancing as well
Granted those dancing scenes were only in the extended version I believe