Blondie-Wan
-
Posts
4,288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Everything posted by Blondie-Wan
-
I can't agree with that, for two reasons. First of all, while I can totally see them reacting to sexists in the wrong way, I just don't see them planning at the outset to manufacture a controversy; that's just not how big corporations operate. Secondly, I think they truly believed in the movie's quality, and still do. Studios tend, if anything, to overestimate the quality of their movies. And this really is a genuinely good movie, or at the very least a decent one. Yes, that's an opinion, but not just mine - it's corroborated by critics, and by people who've actually seen it. And while your own opinion may differ, and that's perfectly fine (have you actually seen it yourself?), when we're discussing the overall response, it's appropriate to disregard our own individual responses and look at aggregate and consensus. And the general consensus among critics is that this is a decent movie, even a good one. Among general audiences, it's harder to pin down, since we can be sure a number of people fundamentally opposed to this movie's existence from the outset are reflexively giving it low ratings without even having seen it, but unfortunately we can't be sure exactly how many of them there are or what percentage of the total they may be (though we may make reasonable inferences).
-
Why should they be pissed at him? He doesn't owe it to fans to be in Ghostbusters 3, and there also isn't a good reason to be upset about this movie's existence, contrary to what the detractors say. If this reboot hadn't come out the franchise would have just died. The reboot tried to keep it alive (and maybe it is, just comatose), but despite being a good movie it's come up short at the box office. Congratulations? Lots of parties screwed up on this. Sony did with sucky marketing, and also responding to haters and trolls in the wrong way. Entitled manbabies who banged on about a female team did by being generally awful. Saner viewers seem to have paid a little too much attention to the hate, and stayed home; they missed out, unfortunately. But the people who actually made the movie did a good job (IMO, obviously, but I'm not alone, and the movie speaks for itself).
-
The debate has gotten ridiculous, no question. Once again, though, to clarify, I've tried to repeatedly clarify that I don't think misogyny is wholly, 100% responsible for the movie's failure, though you've overlooked that. I'm saying it again here, now, just for you. Happy? I've also fully acknowledged not everyone who dislikes this movie does so out of misogyny. But that said, it is undisputable a level of misogyny has been directed at this movie that few movies, even other movies fronted mainly by women, has had to contend with. I don't know why, unless it's tied to opposition to rebooting at all. I can understand that - believe me, I can, and my ideal dream third Ghostbusters movie would have been a straight-up Ghostbusters 3. But with Ramis gone and Murray flatly unwilling to return in that role, it just wasn't going to happen. And with the property being a studio property seemingly tailor-made to be a franchise, it was going to be continued in some way or other. A reboot, especially one with some unique spin that distinguished it from the originals in some way, was probably the thing that would make the most artistic sense - more so than the "passing the torch" movie some have suggested - and be justifiable creatively as well as commercially. IMO, of course. I'm truly sorry it's not working out. I would have really liked to have gotten more after the one I saw, if they'd have been as fun as this one was. Oh, well.
-
(n/m)
-
If I can fascinate Actor Builder, my life shall not have been lived in vain.
-
I didn't say they did it all by themselves; I said they were a major factor, and they are, along with the horrible advertising. I never said everyone who didn't like it was a misogynist; that's you misunderstanding me, and extrapolating things I didn't say (and don't mean) from things I did say. I am fully aware that plenty of people just plain don't like the movie. However comma there are also many people who ripped into it on sexist grounds, with a fervor one never sees for remakes and reboots with male casting, and attacked using gendered insults and slurs like the c-word, etc., leaving no room for doubt. Could the film just be not good? Sure; that's true for anything. However comma again the critics' response was and is still nothing like the what the haters are saying. You have a video from Nostalgia Critic? Peachy. Allow me to direct you to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, where you can find not just one or two but many reviews for the movie, from over a hundred critics. See what they say. Yes, negative reviews do exist, but they're outliers. They're not representative of the whole. The closest thing we have to a general consensus on this is that the movie is somewhere from okay to really good. And even if they were, it would do nothing to change the fact so much of the response was so vile and beyond any reasonable standard of criticism for even a terrible movie. As for whether it actually is a terrible movie or not, aside from the critics' word, all I can say is that I personally enjoyed it immensely, as did every other person I personally know who's seen it and whose opinion I know (of whom there are nine). If you like, I could let you know if and when that changes, but for now, having seen it twice so far, I'm comfortable with my own informed opinion of the movie's worth, thanks. One last thing, with regards to the article I quoted earlier that you guys probably didn't bother to read, and one of the other pieces it cites, which I'll quote here directly: (emphasis added)
-
Not entirely; no one's saying that. Certainly the trailers didn't help. And plenty of people hated that it rebooted a beloved franchise at all, with or without women. But there was indeed a deeply entrenched misogyny directed against this movie. Well, yeah - exactly. That movie has much worse reviews than Ghostbusters, yet one doesn't see the venomous posts about that one does for the other. And what negative posts and tweets there are aren't filled with gendered insults and such, the way a great many - not, not all, but a lot - of the Ghostbusters ones were. Well, all over the place, actually... Totally different thing, since that's based on a female superhero who's been around 75 years, and is also the sole female headliner in what's ofherwise an overwhelmingly male-dominated franchise.
-
Indeed: (source)
-
First of all, Bardock's tweet celebrating the movie's failure was churlish and childish; no one who wanted a sequel would have to have it, but actively campaigning to keep others from getting it? How gauche. And secondly, Feig didn't do or say anything; he merely retweeted Bardock Obama, by way of showing what kind of BS he's still having to deal with, but without actually commenting on it or advising a course of action. Merely retweeting a tweet is hardly childish. Unfortunately, that's probably the case. Meanwhile, Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, while performing below expectations, still rake it in at the box office, as have all the live-action Transformers movies. Oh, well. Unfortunately, I think misogynists have killed the franchise, or at least put it into a coma.
-
How does it rip someone off if someone scans a shield? I don't understand...
-
Well, it's still just an existing part molded in a new color. It's not like they created an entire new mold and used it only for this one ultra-rare set. I fully expect to see it turn up in a regular, wide-release set sometime.
-
Speaking as a fan of the originals, I have to say i immensely enjoy the new one. It's honestly a lot better than Ghostbusters 2, and I say that as someone who actually enjoys Ghostbusters 2.
-
Well, who can better play Indy at a given age than Harrison Ford around the same age? Say they recast, but still made it a sequel, so that Indy is in his 60s or 70s. Do you really think there's some better actor for that character? Yes, but the EU they jettisoned wasn't The Clone Wars - it was mostly a bunch of books and comics and such that were always at a lesser tier of canon than the actual screen productions. The Clone Wars is still canon; in fact, it's even being referenced by the new live-action movies. Similarly, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles / The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones can remain canon even while they jettison the extant novels, comics, etc., if they want to go that way. And they'd be better off keeping it - in all honesty, it's easily the most artistically ambitious, emotionally deep, and substantial part of the canon. It makes the movies and the whole franchise more meaningful, elevating it all above mere popcorn thrills (however expertly, brilliantly executed popcorn thrills they usually are) to something greater and more profound. And what end would it serve? I love what Marvel is doing, but I agree I wouldn't necessarily want it for Indy. That said, it's not in my hands. I mentioned it only because it actually was relevant to the issue of whether the franchise would be rebooted. Whether we get an ongoing cinematic Indyverse, a reboot series, or neither, what definitely is happening at the moment is a fifth movie in the classic series, with Harrison Ford, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, and Frank Marshall all returning in the capacities on which they all worked on the first four. Some outside factor might disrupt or derail that, but it won't be because of what we say here in this thread on a LEGO forum; we have about as much control over it as we do over erosion on Mars. As long as it's happening anyway, we might as well hope for the best, right?
-
Well, we don't exactly truly "need" any movies at all. But I'm talking about what I, as a fan, want. And I disagree about what's most interesting. The character was always interesting, but gained lots of layers and depth once he was fleshed out. As for not taking the show as canon, what reason on Earth is there to do that? The show is the largest, most ambitious part of the entire screen canon to date; it's also actually even better than three out of the four movies, IMO (and this is coming from someone who loves all the movies probably more than anyone else here). The show is even referenced in the movie series. If it were removed from canon, would you also remove movies as well? A reboot will most likely happen at some point whether we want it or not anyway. I'd just like to get a last little bit of additional material to finish out the original Indy before it does, and there's nothing wrong with that - it won't prevent anyone who wants a reboot from eventually getting it. It'll just bring those of us who want one final go-round with the original what we want. There are rumblings of Disney•Lucasfilm continuing on with adventures with new characters in a shared Indy universe, but if that's the way they go, the status of a reboot still won't be changed by the existence or absence of the next movie with Harrison & co. We don't; we just know that he lives until at least his early 90s, in the year 1993. He could die later that year, or make it all the way to a hundred or more.
-
The 1930s are the time for which he's best known to some of us, but the character lives from July 1st, 1899 to at least sometime in the early 1990s. We've seen him in the 1930s (specifically, 1935, 1936, and 1938) - and 1908 to 1910, 1912, 1916 to 1920, 1950, 1957 and 1958, and 1992 and 1993. What we haven't seen is anything in that huuuuuuuuge gap between 1958 and 1992. We also know that he had particularly harrowing adventures in this time period, ones which left him more visibly scarred than anything that had happened to him at any previous point in his life, yet we know nothing about those adventures. Maybe the 1930s are the period people best know him in, but that's the period most in need of fleshing out for his screen biography to be more complete.
-
LEGO Ideas Discussion
Blondie-Wan replied to The Real Indiana Jones's topic in General LEGO Discussion
Yesterday they began something new, brief interviews in the blog posts with creators of projects that reach review. The first is with whatpumpkin, creator of the Fossil Museum currently in review. She's only 21! A while back they did have a guest blog post by wetwired, offering his tips and insight on the process, though this interview is a bit more far-ranging. I don't think wetwired's post ever got mentioned in this thread until now, but it seems germane. -
Habitat boxes? What are these about?
-
Very nice!
-
Would it? Why? What makes you think so? Indeed.
-
Is LEGO promoting non-purist thinking?
Blondie-Wan replied to SevenStuds's topic in General LEGO Discussion
Wow, really?! I did not know that! When did that happen? -
So, your answer is to either cast some other older actor, or cast a young actor and put him in old age makeup, when we already have the perfect actor for Indy? That doesn't make any sense.
-
I don't think the first movie exists solely within Finn's imagination - in fact, we know his dad's imagination has as much of an effect as his does. I think it's more like Emmet & Wyldstyle's world being its own plane of existence, one which intersects and reflects the imaginary worlds Finn and The Man Upstairs construct in their basement, but which doesn't exist solely because of it. It's kinda sorta a little like the Mirror Universe in Star Trek, say, but bearing a somewhat different relationship with the other world.
-
Disney Collectible Minifigures Series 1 Discussion
Blondie-Wan replied to just2good's topic in LEGO Licensed
Regular retail stores (e.g., Target) may also be worth a try. -
LEGO Ideas Discussion
Blondie-Wan replied to The Real Indiana Jones's topic in General LEGO Discussion
Hmmm... I think I was wrong earlier. I'm increasingly beginning to think the Lamborghini Veneno Roadster will make it into this batch as well. -
Megablocks (sorry) Star Trek The Original Series!
Blondie-Wan replied to Columbus019's topic in Community
I'm not a fan of either's bricks, but if I were going to get any of these I'd go for the MB ones, simply because of the subject matter. I'm not at all a fan of the new movies (from 2009 on), but I love and adore the franchise in general pre-2009, and the subject matter of the MB sets include the first things I'd want from a Star Trek toy line. I do wish LEGO had the license, though.