Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 273
  1. #76
    All-New Member AwesomeMix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Immortal Weapon View Post
    2009 Ghostbusters game which acts as the third movie was received positively.
    Yeah that pretty much was GB3. Great game and script-the script I believe they had wrote originally for a sequel and adapted it for the game.

  2. #77
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simbob4000 View Post
    Human nature isn't a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory would be that all the reviewers got together and decided no matter what they'd collectively give it a good review...which is not what I even kind of said. What you're saying would be like saying, if the movie had actually turned out good, and if MRA types still said is was horrible, that it was a conspiracy theory they were letting their person bias get in the way. The way you throw around conspiracy theory it's becoming more and more clear you don't actually know what the word means.

    If you think it's crazy that some reviewers might let personal bias cloud their review on a movie they've turned into a political stance, then maybe you should go read some of their Twitter accounts.

    Didn't Richard Roeper say that after his review of the movie he had critics tell him he was sexist for being hard on it? Can't imagine those people letting their person bias get in the way of a review. Can't imagine reviewers that wrote dishonest think pieces on the Angry Video Game Nerd (probably because he's got video game in his handle...so gamergate) being a sexist for not wanting to see it letting personal bias seep into a review.
    Yeah, I think you're reaching hard for an explanation of the general positive review consensus that doesn't cause you cognitive dissonance. All you can come up with is that the reviewers who gave positive reviews made up fake scores and did so out of some political bias and a desire not to let the MRA groups "win," which is absurd because why would they care so much what those groups think? Why would someone risk their professional reputation for a "take that" to TITSORGTFO69 on Reddit? That's why the conspiracy theory originated from those groups in the first place, it increases their already inflated sense of importance. And the idea that there was no conspiracy and they did it spontaneously and individually is even more absurd than the conspiracy theory.

  3. #78
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxMatrix View Post
    The money angle is funny though because so far Ghostbusters is more successful than the newest Star Trek but that one is getting a sequel, I believe. Of course it's very well that Paramount and Sony have very different metrics for success though

    I just think it's hilarious how bent of shape fanboys of DCU came out to defend and rationalize everything about Suicide Squad when it first was about to release. They called conspiracy, rated the film high on sites (without seeing it) and did everything to defend it from critics and anti-DCU fanboys. But some of those same people were earlier taking the place of the anti-DCU fanboys in regards to this film. It's almost like people's bias don't even let them see asshats, unless the asshats are not them.
    Ghostbusters came out a week earlier and it's box office is below Star Trek Beyond. Now if you're talking just the return, than yeah, because Star Trek cost more to make. You're also talking different studios with different properties and a Star Trek sequel announcement that was made back in July; mostly before the movie opened, or right after it opened.

  4. #79
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    9,336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MCBT View Post
    Regardless, it would have been sad. Like just not funny. I guarantee Ghostbusters 3 would have been met with derision like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Nobody can just win.
    If I made GB3, I'd have Bill Murray be the big ghost bad guy and attack New York with an army of giant Pillsbury doughboys.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  5. #80
    BANNED dragonmp93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Hopkins View Post
    Yeah, I think you're reaching hard for an explanation of the general positive review consensus that doesn't cause you cognitive dissonance. All you can come up with is that the reviewers who gave positive reviews made up fake scores and did so out of some political bias and a desire not to let the MRA groups "win," which is absurd because why would they care so much what those groups think? Why would someone risk their professional reputation for a "take that" to TITSORGTFO69 on Reddit? That's why the conspiracy theory originated from those groups in the first place, it increases their already inflated sense of importance. And the idea that there was no conspiracy and they did it spontaneously and individually is even more absurd than the conspiracy theory.
    The point is that for some reason, the critics think that the Ghostbusters reboot is better than Suicide Squad; and that's why i dont trust them.

  6. #81
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonmp93 View Post
    The point is that for some reason, the critics think that the Ghostbusters reboot is better than Suicide Squad; and that's why i dont trust them.
    I think it's better, too. And I liked Suicide Squad OK. I'm not some D.C. hater, either. I'm a huge John Ostrander fan from way back. I follow him on Facebook and I've read every issue of the original series and a few of the lesser reboots. I'd count the Doom Patrol/Suicide Squad Special in my top 5 D.C. books, easily. I wanted Suicide Squad to be great very badly.

    Maybe it's just that people can have different opinions?
    Last edited by Shawn Hopkins; 08-11-2016 at 12:08 PM.

  7. #82
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    If I made GB3, I'd have Bill Murray be the big ghost bad guy and attack New York with an army of giant Pillsbury doughboys.
    I think Bill Murray would kill himself before doing that.

  8. #83
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    9,336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Hopkins View Post
    I think Bill Murray would kill himself before doing that.
    Makes me wonder what kind of crazy pitches people have made to him for a sequel over the years.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  9. #84
    Extraordinary Member HsssH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxMatrix View Post
    The money angle is funny though because so far Ghostbusters is more successful than the newest Star Trek but that one is getting a sequel, I believe. Of course it's very well that Paramount and Sony have very different metrics for success though
    Pretty much every studio announces plans for the sequel (Ghostbusters also had talks about sequel, no?) to give the impression of confidence in their product. Star Trek got a bit stronger legs and it came out later so Paramount is probably still counting chickens before making any announcements.

  10. #85
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AwesomeMix View Post
    Yeah that pretty much was GB3. Great game and script-the script I believe they had wrote originally for a sequel and adapted it for the game.
    a great game but the save mechanic was only the big flaw from it.

  11. #86
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Hopkins View Post
    Yeah, I think you're reaching hard for an explanation of the general positive review consensus that doesn't cause you cognitive dissonance. All you can come up with is that the reviewers who gave positive reviews made up fake scores and did so out of some political bias and a desire not to let the MRA groups "win," which is absurd because why would they care so much what those groups think? Why would someone risk their professional reputation for a "take that" to TITSORGTFO69 on Reddit? That's why the conspiracy theory originated from those groups in the first place, it increases their already inflated sense of importance. And the idea that there was no conspiracy and they did it spontaneously and individually is even more absurd than the conspiracy theory.
    It's not a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy would involve collusion among a group of people...which isn't even kind of what I said. You'd have to be blind to not see that there are reviewers that turned this movie into a political stance, and you'd have to have zero understanding of humans if you think none of them may have let that cloud their judgment on this really shitty comedy. This movie is as bad as a number of comedies that get ripped to pieces, but Ghostbusters was practically getting blown by some reviewers. So yes, some, not all, but some reviewers may have given the movie good reviews for ideological reasons as opposed to anything really found on display in the film. Ideology over aesthetic when it comes to movie reviews isn't something you don't see happening, this is just the first time I can think of seeing it happen with something so clearly terrible.

    Why do you care what those groups think? You keep going on about MRAs and GamerGate people, clearly you very much care about them and their reactions. Do you think reviewers that go on about the same kind of thing don't care? You think some reviewer that wrote a whole think piece on how people that don't want to see a movie are sexist, or have been talking about those groups you keep bring up for years on Twitter couldn't possibly have a bias regarding a movie they've turned into a line in the sand political stance before it even released? These groups even come up in some of the reviews, even though the whole trailer thing is such an insignificant amount of people that even saw the trailer in the first place...but those people don't care?

    It's really funny how here you're saying this idea came from MRAs groups to inflat their sense of importance, (which actually does sound like a conspiracy theory) when before regarding the totally insignificant amount of mean replies on the Ghostbusters trailer you made it sounded like a huge problem that was in not way at all being blown way out of proportion by websites looking for something to write about, and Sony using it as an angle to sell the movie. So which is it? It can't be both. It can't be too big a problem to ignore and too small to matter to them.

  12. #87
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HsssH View Post
    Pretty much every studio announces plans for the sequel (Ghostbusters also had talks about sequel, no?) to give the impression of confidence in their product. Star Trek got a bit stronger legs and it came out later so Paramount is probably still counting chickens before making any announcements.

    True...it's insane how much money movies have to make now to be considered successful. To think that The Phantom was considered a big budget film and it cost $40 million (which was supposed to be a trilogy lol).

  13. #88
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simbob4000 View Post
    It's not a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy would involve collusion among a group of people...which isn't even kind of what I said. You'd have to be blind to not see that there are reviewers that turned this movie into a political stance, and you'd have to have zero understanding of humans if you think none of them may have let that cloud their judgment on this really shitty comedy. This movie is as bad as a number of comedies that get ripped to pieces, but Ghostbusters was practically getting blown by some reviewers. So yes, some, not all, but some reviewers may have given the movie good reviews for ideological reasons as opposed to anything really found on display in the film. Ideology over aesthetic when it comes to movie reviews isn't something you don't see happening, this is just the first time I can think of seeing it happen with something so clearly terrible.

    Why do you care what those groups think? You keep going on about MRAs and GamerGate people, clearly you very much care about them and their reactions. Do you think reviewers that go on about the same kind of thing don't care? You think some reviewer that wrote a whole think piece on how people that don't want to see a movie are sexist, or have been talking about those groups you keep bring up for years on Twitter couldn't possibly have a bias regarding a movie they've turned into a line in the sand political stance before it even released? These groups even come up in some of the reviews, even though the whole trailer thing is such an insignificant amount of people that even saw the trailer in the first place...but those people don't care?

    It's really funny how here you're saying this idea came from MRAs groups to inflat their sense of importance, (which actually does sound like a conspiracy theory) when before regarding the totally insignificant amount of mean replies on the Ghostbusters trailer you made it sounded like a huge problem that was in not way at all being blown way out of proportion by websites looking for something to write about, and Sony using it as an angle to sell the movie. So which is it? It can't be both. It can't be too big a problem to ignore and too small to matter to them.
    There's a difference between the outrage (more coordinated and planned than some will admit) being significant and newsworthy enough for the media to write about and creative people to respond, and mattering enough to reviewers, spontaneously and individually, to compromise their ethics by giving the movie dishonest review scores just to hurt the feelings of angry Redditors and CBR forum members.

  14. #89
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Hopkins View Post
    Maybe it's just that people can have different opinions?
    Yes. Like "While I dislike this film because I wanted a third film, I really can't back some of this other nonsense folks are on about."

  15. #90
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Hopkins View Post
    There's a difference between the outrage (more coordinated and planned than some will admit) being significant and newsworthy enough for the media to write about and creative people to respond, and mattering enough to reviewers, spontaneously and individually, to compromise their ethics by giving the movie dishonest review scores just to hurt the feelings of angry Redditors and CBR forum members.
    The media wrote about it. That does not equal less of the "John/Jane Public Demo Who Could Really Care Less About What Shawn Is On About Or Those Reviewers" going to see the movie.

    Sometimes, a film just doesn't grab the general public.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •