• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Howitzer

NP: Friday, May 20, 2016

Recommended Posts

I'm just weirded out it's a remake when they had the perfect sequel fodder for a new team in the fluff for the tabletop game: the guys in New York are franchising out, and you're one of the new Ghostbusters teams.

That, to me, would be the best way to continue the series. 

A lot of people are going nuts over them being ladies, which... Eh.  Whatever.

We've had lady ghostbusters before, in the cartoons and the tabletop game. Nothing new there.

 

It being a reboot raises many questions I feel ought to be asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, what with all the yelling on the internet about the ghost busters reboot I thought it had actually come out already. I don't watch movies in general though, so I really shouldn't care either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RainbowWizard said:

I'm just weirded out it's a remake when they had the perfect sequel fodder for a new team in the fluff for the tabletop game: the guys in New York are franchising out, and you're one of the new Ghostbusters teams.

That, to me, would be the best way to continue the series. 

A lot of people are going nuts over them being ladies, which... Eh.  Whatever.

We've had lady ghostbusters before, in the cartoons and the tabletop game. Nothing new there.

 

It being a reboot raises many questions I feel ought to be asked.

Also, the word "reboot" implies that they're discarding the old franchise and making it all anew, but they're very deliberately leaning on the originals.

The best comparison I can think of is if in Die hard 4.0 they replaced Bruce Willis with some random Asian guy (for example), but still called him John McClane. Saying that it's a reboot but still using the original stuff... I don't even know man. This is why I don't make movies I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was cautiously optimistic until I saw the first trailer.  It... pretty much looked like a Scary Movie entry.  Honestly, I don't watch a lot of new movies, so I wasn't planning on seeing it anyway, but unless it gets Fury Road-level reviews, I'm not going near it.

That said, it's hard to think that misogyny isn't a factor in the level of ire it's received, although misogyny alone couldn't do it; it's sort of a perfect storm of nostalgia, misogyny, and, like the new CoD entry, just plain looking like crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reboot that makes radical changes is hit or miss to start with. some will love it, others will declare it the antichrist and boycot the series until the next change of director. (see: startrek)

A reboot that makes radical changes, and decides to have the new characters be played by people who clearly can't act? who's effects look worse than it's predecessor despite a multi-decade time-gap? (how did they even do that? i had to go back and re-watch a few clips of the old one to make sure it wasn't nostalgia blindness...) who's inability to come up with a proper title makes it clear just how lazy the writing will be and has gotten it slapped with an embarrassing nickname? ...yeah, there's no saving that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really was hoping the Ghost Busters reboot would be good. An all female cast helming a knockout comedy-action romp would be nearly as good for the industry as a female lead superhero getting a great film. But good lord that trailer was terrrrible. :( It just wasn't funny, to put it simply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

judging by the trailer the writers are asleep at the helm. they could cast it as all male, all female, an even mix, or all kangaroo, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

...actually all kangaroo might be better just because kangaroos can't make cringe-worthy exorcist references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't usually pay much attention to trailers, I'll watch em if they happen to be on TV while I'm watching something, or if someone links it to me online. And then it's more of a, "does it look like it'll be fun?" It's the same with games too, and a lot of companies will pick and choose what to put in the trailers to try to draw people in, but if they only put action scenes in a trailer and a 2 hour movie only has 30 minutes of action in it then people are likely not going to like the movie as much because they expected it to be action packed. Then again, this may be a brilliant tactic for the ghostbusters movie to use footage that sets expectations low for everyone so that when people do see the movie, people would be like "Oh. My. God. That was much better than the trailer made me think it'd be."

 

8 hours ago, ChaosSepher said:

Trying to remember if we have seen Susan in those kind of cute leggy shorts before?  Because I think she is really rockin em!

I don't think so, in the main comic the closest I think she's worn is this. She's also worn knee-length shorts.

1 hour ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

Is it just me, or has Sarah put on a few pounds?

 

It kinda does, but I wonder if it's just because she's standing next to Susan who's taller and thinner that her. I can't really find a good shot of Sarah from the MV5 story to compare but Sarah doesn't look overweight when next to Grace and Ellen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RainbowWizard said:

I'm just weirded out it's a remake when they had the perfect sequel fodder for a new team in the fluff for the tabletop game: the guys in New York are franchising out, and you're one of the new Ghostbusters teams.

That, to me, would be the best way to continue the series. 

Agree. Alternatively, they could make it a parody - it might end like one anyway. But why remake?

15 hours ago, Pizzaboy10 said:
16 hours ago, RainbowWizard said:

It being a reboot raises many questions I feel ought to be asked.

Also, the word "reboot" implies that they're discarding the old franchise and making it all anew, but they're very deliberately leaning on the originals.

The best comparison I can think of is if in Die hard 4.0 they replaced Bruce Willis with some random Asian guy (for example), but still called him John McClane. Saying that it's a reboot but still using the original stuff... I don't even know man. This is why I don't make movies I guess.

Yeah ... "we can't really replace the original, but we don't want to make a sequel to it either".

15 hours ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

A reboot that makes radical changes is hit or miss to start with. some will love it, others will declare it the antichrist and boycot the series until the next change of director. (see: startrek)

A reboot that makes radical changes, and decides to have the new characters be played by people who clearly can't act? who's effects look worse than it's predecessor despite a multi-decade time-gap? (how did they even do that? i had to go back and re-watch a few clips of the old one to make sure it wasn't nostalgia blindness...) who's inability to come up with a proper title makes it clear just how lazy the writing will be and has gotten it slapped with an embarrassing nickname? ...yeah, there's no saving that.

Well the Star Trek had a camera with worse lens flare than the original - oh wait, that was added deliberately. But yes, I would ignore the lens flare if they would put technical errors AND plot holes in ... if the new Ghostbusters will be like new Star Trek, then it's not worth seeing.

5 hours ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

Is it just me, or has Sarah put on a few pounds?

Looks that way to me too.

4 hours ago, Scotty said:
5 hours ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

Is it just me, or has Sarah put on a few pounds?

It kinda does, but I wonder if it's just because she's standing next to Susan who's taller and thinner that her. I can't really find a good shot of Sarah from the MV5 story to compare but Sarah doesn't look overweight when next to Grace and Ellen.

.... hmmm ... maybe ...

4 hours ago, Scotty said:
12 hours ago, ChaosSepher said:

Trying to remember if we have seen Susan in those kind of cute leggy shorts before?  Because I think she is really rockin em!

I don't think so, in the main comic the closest I think she's worn is this. She's also worn knee-length shorts.

I'm not surprised it's not in main comics, but maybe some sketchbook? ... can't find any ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:
16 hours ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

A reboot that makes radical changes is hit or miss to start with. some will love it, others will declare it the antichrist and boycot the series until the next change of director. (see: startrek)

A reboot that makes radical changes, and decides to have the new characters be played by people who clearly can't act? who's effects look worse than it's predecessor despite a multi-decade time-gap? (how did they even do that? i had to go back and re-watch a few clips of the old one to make sure it wasn't nostalgia blindness...) who's inability to come up with a proper title makes it clear just how lazy the writing will be and has gotten it slapped with an embarrassing nickname? ...yeah, there's no saving that.

Well the Star Trek had a camera with worse lens flare than the original - oh wait, that was added deliberately. But yes, I would ignore the lens flare if they would put technical errors AND plot holes in ... if the new Ghostbusters will be like new Star Trek, then it's not worth seeing.

From a technical standpoint the startrek reboot was an improvement.

From a visual standpoint the movie would have been an improvement had it not been for the excessive lens flares, unnecessarily dark choppy space-scenes, and absurd ship interiors. (what happened to having guard rails and bulkheads? did someone decide the safety regulations that were already in place in Archer's day were too much?)

From an acting standpoint the cast are acceptable, though I suspect that's largely due to Leonard Nemoy having been on hand to give the newbies pointers.

From a writing standpoint the premise being a poorly hand-waved or thought out blank cheque to disregard canon was unforgivable. (The setting already had trilithium, red mater was unnececary. The setting already had FOUR canon AUs (main (TV/Movie) universe, Mirrorverse, Literary AU, Game AU.) another one is unnecessary and annoying. but biggest of all, it is thoroughly established in all previous versions of canon that paradoxes do not create new realities, they DESTROY the one they occur in and REPLACE it (how many times have the cast witnessed reality be overwritten right in front of their eyes because the past was changed? twenty? thirty? more?). which makes the "it's just an AU, relax." argument ring false no matter how much the 11th movie claims otherwise.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

From a technical standpoint the startrek reboot was an improvement.

I see I said it incorrectly. I'm not talking about movie technology. I'm talking about the in-universe technology. The first movie was bad, but not worse than lot of already existing episodes (mainly VOY and ENT of course). But second movie? Cold fusion device freezing the volcano? Interstellar transporter with Qo'noS in range from Earth?

Also, it being improvement from Star Trek: The Motion Picture is not saying that much.

13 minutes ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

(how many times have the cast witnessed reality be overwritten right in front of their eyes because the past was changed? twenty? thirty? more?)

I don't think the number will be so high. I mean, Guinan was able to feel the change, but other characters were only able to notice the difference if under effect of the time travelling - otherwise, their memories changes as well.

Also, almost every time they travelled in time they used different technology. The existence of Mirrorverse might actually prove that some ways of travelling DO create stable alternative universe.

Still ... they destroyed Romulus in one reality (by a supernova bigger than solar system - ok, I'm taking back the "first movie was only bad") and Vulcan in other. Personally, I'm ignoring BOTH. Which makes me compatible with the reality of several books where Romulus still exists and has a civil war ... or was this the game reality? I need to actually READ those books ...

That first Abrams movie might be acceptable B movie, but it's less StarTrek than Andromeda. The second movie is worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:
2 hours ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

(how many times have the cast witnessed reality be overwritten right in front of their eyes because the past was changed? twenty? thirty? more?)

I don't think the number will be so high. I mean, Guinan was able to feel the change, but other characters were only able to notice the difference if under effect of the time travelling - otherwise, their memories changes as well.

the sanctuary district incident (DS9), the dozen or so incidents in Krenim space (Voyager), the crew of the enterprise watching earth be retroactively assimilated (First Contact) are the ones that come most readily to mind, but I know there were others.

Yesterday's enterprise was the exception, not the rule. and even then someone was aware that it was the present changing, not an entirely new world.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Also, almost every time they travelled in time they used different technology. The existence of Mirrorverse might actually prove that some ways of travelling DO create stable alternative universe.

There are a dozen different engines capable of breaking the sound barrier, some liquid fuel some solid fuel, some turbines, etc. but that doesn't change how the physics of supersonic flight works. once a series establishes that physics work a particular way in their setting, those rules are imutable and anything that contradicts them is a plothole.

Also, mirorverse has nothing to do with time travel, the mirorverse is the result of a reality where Zephrem Cochran was a xenophobic dickbag who shot and killed the vulcan survey team and founded a galactic empire using their stolen tech. No time travel involved. Startrek acknowledges the presence of the multi-verse, but clearly treats it as independent of temporal mechanics as plots involving the two have only once overlapped before ST11, (the Constitution class version of the USS Defiant winding up in the (already established) mirorverse 50 years out of sync) and even then the two plot devices were not treated as connected to each other in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, InfiniteRemnant said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I don't think the number will be so high. I mean, Guinan was able to feel the change, but other characters were only able to notice the difference if under effect of the time travelling - otherwise, their memories changes as well.

the sanctuary district incident (DS9), the dozen or so incidents in Krenim space (Voyager), the crew of the enterprise watching earth be retroactively assimilated (First Contact) are the ones that come most readily to mind, but I know there were others.

Yesterday's enterprise was the exception, not the rule. and even then someone was aware that it was the present changing, not an entirely new world.

In TAS:Yesteryear, noone knew Spock except Kirk who was in past with him when they changed the past using Guardian of Forever. And note that crew of Enterprise could've seen Earth being assimilated in First Contact only because they were already inside the temporal vortex - otherwise they would just disappear.

1 hour ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

There are a dozen different engines capable of breaking the sound barrier, some liquid fuel some solid fuel, some turbines, etc. but that doesn't change how the physics of supersonic flight works. once a series establishes that physics work a particular way in their setting, those rules are imutable and anything that contradicts them is a plothole.

That's not valid comparison. The StarTrek physics is really complicated and two completely different methods of time travel can fit in. And you already mentioned the case of USS Defiant (NCC-1764). Also, in The Voyage Home, they seemed to activate warp while in atmosphere, I wouldn't count on physics of supersonic flight working normally for such case ...

On the other hand, with the amount of explaining the difference they did in the movie (read: they didn't explained it at all), it being a plot hole is more likely. The Star Trek: Department of Temporal Investigations series suggest that physics of time travel is really supposed to be established well in Star Trek ...

Note also that the idea that even just Star Trek movies and series fits into one continuity is considered unlikely by lot of people, including me and Susan, although I have problems finding the reference ... I think it mentioned the problem with Picard's different behaviour in First Contact and in TNG.

EDIT: found it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Recent NP Threads have me contemplating a Ghostbusters / Star Trek / Tetris cross over.

I think TNG does that all on it's own, I mean there's the borg cubes, and the espisode "Power Play" essentially had ghosts possessing crew members, and an attempt to extract and contain them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now