The AVGN is now a white cis male privilage piss-baby man-child racist sexist shitlord

[synbiosfan]

Commercials look as bad as the clips of AVGN I've seen. Will not watch either.

[midnightrider]

You look at the original Ghostbusters movie. All of them looked like they had known each other awhile. The way they talked, interacted, joked with each other (and others), made them believable as a group. The exception being Winston because he came in later in the movie as a new guy. But even he fit in well enough. He wasn't over the top or a terrible racial stereotype.

If people have no on screen chemistry with each other, it's just beyond the abilities of some people to fake that.

In this case, to me at least, it's pretty obvious there is very little, if any, on screen chemistry between the cast. They are playing their parts, as written, in a virtual vacuum. They each exist independently of one another without any real sense of cohesiveness with the rest of the cast except where interactions are explicitly written.

Yeah, in the case of the original, Bill Muray and Harold Ramis had worked together on Meatballs('79), Caddyshack('80), and Stripes('81, the only one Ramis also co-stared in), so the 2 knew each other very well by the time they made Ghostbusters ('84). Bill Murray and Dan Aykroid worked together in a TV movie called All you need is Cash('78), and also have been on Saturday Night Live together, between '77 and '79. The only connection I can figure for Ernie Hudson is through John Candy. After having worked with Candy on Stripes, they wanted him for the part of Louis Tully, before he suggested Rick Moranis would fit the role better. Hudson and Candy had worked together in Going Berserk, which released in '83, the year before Ghostbusters. Candy also makes an appearance in the music video for Ghostbusters. So the main cast already had a lot of familiarity in one way or another.

[EclecticGroove]

Yeah, in the case of the original, Bill Muray and Harold Ramis had worked together on Meatballs('79), Caddyshack('80), and Stripes('81, the only one Ramis also co-stared in), so the 2 knew each other very well by the time they made Ghostbusters ('84). Bill Murray and Dan Aykroid worked together in a TV movie called All you need is Cash('78), and also have been on Saturday Night Live together, between '77 and '79. The only connection I can figure for Ernie Hudson is through John Candy. After having worked with Candy on Stripes, they wanted him for the part of Louis Tully, before he suggested Rick Moranis would fit the role better. Hudson and Candy had worked together in Going Berserk, which released in '83, the year before Ghostbusters. Candy also makes an appearance in the music video for Ghostbusters. So the main cast already had a lot of familiarity in one way or another.

Exactly, and this showed on screen very well.

I don't know if any of these women have the same kind of history with each other, but judging by the previews the answer is either:
No they do not.
or
They do, but they are unable to translate that in all/most/some of the movie due to writing/script/direction.

The best case is the people making the previews picked some of the worst examples from the movie to show them as a "team". Which would still be bad because why would they do that if they had even a handful of much better examples to choose from?

So the most likely answer to be true is that the majority of the movie is the same. And it was not a movie anyone involved was really hyped about... they were just going through the motions and collecting a paycheck.

[cabear]

I don't get the reverence for Ghostbusters, but the new one looks whatever , neither great nor terrible (is it really worse then anything else released in the past few years?) Is it that bad to make a new Ghostbusters for the new generation?

[BonusKun]

For fuck's sake it's an old ass nerd who refuses to watch the movie because it literally has no real connection to the original. He's not even going full on bashing the film and gave legit reasons why he doesn't want to see it and the internet literally lost it's fucking mind.

[Gentlegamer]

For fuck's sake it's an old ass nerd who refuses to watch the movie because it literally has no real connection to the original. He's not even going full on bashing the film and gave legit reasons why he doesn't want to see it and the internet literally lost it's fucking mind.

Welcome to the SJW-Lügenpresse.

[Thief]

For fuck's sake it's an old ass nerd who refuses to watch the movie because it literally has no real connection to the original. He's not even going full on bashing the film and gave legit reasons why he doesn't want to see it and the internet literally lost it's fucking mind.

This is what the internet does best.

[WarmSignal]

He's reviewed several terrible movies before. It's kind of his thing to shit all over bad games and movies. Why wouldn't he take this opportunity? I don't know, my cynical side says this was a planned "controversy". Was probably Mike's idea, a scheme to get more viewers for Cinemassacre. Will probably work too.

[EclecticGroove]

He's reviewed several terrible movies before. It's kind of his thing to shit all over bad games and movies. Why wouldn't he take this opportunity? I don't know, my cynical side says this was a planned "controversy". Was probably Mike's idea, a scheme to get more viewers for Cinemassacre. Will probably work too.

Maybe. But he did address that in the video.

He said he's reviewed tons of them, but they have just been shitty movies. He said Ghostbusters is something near and dear to him, and this movie, through all the trials and issues it's had trying to have a legitimate Ghostbusters 3, just isn't anything that he wanted to see from the movie.

Personally I think it's a bit silly mind you. But I also can't fault him for it. Maybe Ghostbusters came out at a time in his life when he just really needed something funny and well put together, or maybe it just hit all the right notes for him.

Who knows?
But it's a movie that it seems he holds a lot more regard for than just being a good movie.

And maybe he will review it eventually. But if he's not pulling some sort of publicity stunt, then he's had a lot of people bugging him about reviewing it, and he just wanted to reply to them and let them know that he doesn't plan on doing so, and what the reasons are aside from "just because".

[Prince Talmit]

Commercials look as bad as the clips of AVGN I've seen. Will not watch either.

Exactly my sentiment.
It's astounding to me that other wanna be internet pundits are using the AVGN statement as click bait for their own stories. I guess that's the level of intellect we have at a general level these days.

[Metalwario64]

How did I see this coming as soon as I saw he made a video on the new Ghostbusters?

I don't get the reverence for Ghostbusters, but the new one looks whatever , neither great nor terrible (is it really worse then anything else released in the past few years?)

Not really, but the bar itself for comedies has been in a downward spiral for years, which makes this stick out all the more because it's a remake of a movie that was good.

Is it that bad to make a new Ghostbusters for the new generation?

If a movie is already great, and has aged well (like say, Robocop), then, in my opinion, it doesn't need a remake, period.

Remakes should be reserved for films that didn't quite live up to their potential, either due to technological limitations of their time, or other reasons (like John Carpenter's The Thing), instead of the trend of the last 10 or so years of just remaking well known classics to make a quick buck off of their name, like, again, Robocop, which was a disastrous remake that definitely didn't need to exist, since the original is still great and is actually more relevant today than in its own time.

[EclecticGroove]

How did I see this coming as soon as I saw he made a video on the new Ghostbusters?


Not really, but the bar itself for comedies has been in a downward spiral for years, which makes this stick out all the more because it's a remake of a movie that was good.



If a movie is already great, and has aged well (like say, Robocop), then, in my opinion, it doesn't need a remake, period.

Remakes should be reserved for films that didn't quite live up to their potential, either due to technological limitations of their time, or other reasons (like John Carpenter's The Thing), instead of the trend of the last 10 or so years of just remaking well known classics to make a quick buck off of their name, like, again, Robocop, which was a disastrous remake that definitely didn't need to exist, since the original is still great and is actually more relevant today than in its own time.

See, I'd agree the robocop remake was terrible.

But it had lots of potential in it to actually be just as relevant to today's audience as the original robocop.

It had sleek visuals, and tiny little hints about the nature of an always on surveillance state, of the interaction between corporations and the military industrial complex. The nature of self determination and identity. All sorts of extremely relevant stuff.

The movie just didn't have the balls to dig in or do anything with it.

Instead it was a pg-13 SFX flop that had no voice, no identity, nothing to make it stand up and be noticed other than being named after a movie that did all the things it didn't dare to even try.

[Thief]

He's reviewed several terrible movies before. It's kind of his thing to shit all over bad games and movies. Why wouldn't he take this opportunity? I don't know, my cynical side says this was a planned "controversy". Was probably Mike's idea, a scheme to get more viewers for Cinemassacre. Will probably work too.

No, his plan and msg is not to support something you don't like. How is everyone missing this msg? It's the last thing he said in his 2nd video. (Timestamped) https://youtu.be/nnLzz_hxzxo?t=745

[LinkueiBR]

When SJW cry, i laugh

[cleeg]

The only remake I consider to have worked lately is King Kong. I loved the dynamic between Kong and Ann Darrow in the newer version; it made it worth remaking as it had something new to say.