Red Letter Media

[BatChatillon]

They didn't need to jump on that SJW bandwagon. Ghostbusters 2016 is so flawed no matter what gender or skin color the main actors woudl have had it would have been that disaster it became. Paul Feig is a hack.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

They didn't need to jump on that SJW bandwagon. Ghostbusters 2016 is so flawed no matter what gender or skin color the main actors woudl have had it would have been that disaster it became. Paul Feig is a hack.

That's the one thing these SJWs seem to forget- That even if it had an all-male team. It'd still suck because it's the same writers and same director regardless. On top of that, it had to compete with the original films, so unfavorable comparisons between them was going to be a given.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

I really don't understand how anyone can find this movie funny on its own merit. I get the feeling Megatron only likes it because it has girls in it and is therefore progressive somehow.

 

[P.A]

Probably the most interesting point out of the video is at the end when he explains that many of GB'16's problems stem from Paul Feig being unable to criticize his crew, so the whole thing looks more like a grade school theatre production with an unusually large budget. Whether that's because he was scared of facing backlash from the actors or a lack of vision from his end, who knows.

Then again, the man had no issues with making a tit out of himself on Twitter before, so...

 

[cypocryphy]

From the clips I've seen it looks like the 2016 GB tries way too hard to be random and shit like that. The CGI also looks like it's from that 2002 "Scooby Doo" movie.

 

[BatChatillon]

The Plinkett review shows the viewers that GB 2016 wasn't even a dumbed down version of the GB 1984, it was way below that, it took out the sci-fi elements, even the horror, and made it a comedy on the same level as late Adam Sandler movies, because Sony wanted a movie that pleases the largest audience. They don't want the nerds alone, they want the family, the casual movie theater attendee and the like.
That's why the lack of witty dialogue, instead we have fart jokes, lots of people dancing and some alibi pop culture references. What was more important was the product placement.

 

[Intelligent Calcium]

I hope they reuse Rich Evans as a Sony executive for their next HitB of a Sony film.

Whether that's because he was scared of facing backlash from the actors or a lack of vision from his end, who knows.

He successfully worked with most of the cast before so I don't think there would have been any backlash. I think it was just laziness - he thought he could just have his actors do all the work via improv, make everything work in the cutting room and make up the difference with branding and nostalgia (while constantly insulting everyone who had nostalgia for the original on twitter). That would also explain Dan Akroyd's claim about Feig not wanting to shoot additional scenes that Akroyd thought were needed. Feig comes out of this looking like a huge hack, while everyone else just looks bad because they weren't utilized properly by him.

 

[Somsnosa]

Mike's insights to good comedy is spot on... Despite Space Cop.

Space Cop is proof that RLM are good comedians, but terrible filmakers. Most B movies they review are 100 times more visually interesting than their pile of garbage

 

[Kyria the Great]

I really like the Plinkett review of Ghostbusters 2016 because it clearly and concisely explains all the problems with that reboot. You can tell that with Mike there is alot of love for the original, but he isn't so nostalgia blind that it comes across as irrational hatred of the reboot. In fact, when he made comparisons to the original, it was completely fair considering that they made alot of scenes similar to the original and thus where the film truly deserves its scorn. Also, the movie was a terrible match with Paul Feig whose only work was really parody style comedy and that isn't what Ghostbusters is supposed to be.

 

[Lensherr]

Well, I'm enough of a man to admit when I'm wrong.

Spoiler: SJW Salt

View attachment 259983View attachment 259984View attachment 259985View attachment 259986View attachment 259987View attachment 259988View attachment 259990 View attachment 259991 View attachment 259992 View attachment 259993

Honestly, we could open a salt thread for this review.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

I really like the Plinkett review of Ghostbusters 2016 because it clearly and concisely explains all the problems with that reboot. You can tell that with Mike there is alot of love for the original, but he isn't so nostalgia blind that it comes across as irrational hatred of the reboot. In fact, when he made comparisons to the original, it was completely fair considering that they made alot of scenes similar to the original and thus where the film truly deserves its scorn. Also, the movie was a terrible match with Paul Feig whose only work was really parody style comedy and that isn't what Ghostbusters is supposed to be.

He surprised me when he went to bat for the actresses and said he thought all of them--even Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones--were funny in other movies he saw. Ironically the movie's main "controversy" and the reason all haters are sexist trolls played no part in this review. Mike focused entirely on the writing, directing, and soulless corporatism.

 

[Gordon Cole]

Honestly, we could open a salt thread for this review.

Eh, looking on Twitter, most of the salt's coming from Megatron and his followers being contrarians almost for attention's sake.

 

[Lackadaisy]

Is there enough for a thread on this SJWMegatron cunt? I see them pop up in other threads and they come off as the most joyless, bitchy, unpleasant jerkwad whenever a social justice sacred cow comes under fire.

I could've sworn they were connected to Lindsey Ellis of TGWTG fame, but I might be wrong on that.

 

[millais]

 

[Durenduren]

I really like the Plinkett review of Ghostbusters 2016 because it clearly and concisely explains all the problems with that reboot. You can tell that with Mike there is alot of love for the original, but he isn't so nostalgia blind that it comes across as irrational hatred of the reboot. In fact, when he made comparisons to the original, it was completely fair considering that they made alot of scenes similar to the original and thus where the film truly deserves its scorn. Also, the movie was a terrible match with Paul Feig whose only work was really parody style comedy and that isn't what Ghostbusters is supposed to be.

But what about the half in a bag review on it? I'm not defending the reboot on any sort like half of the feminist idiots, I'm just saying it's basically the same thing but with plinkett in it.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

I'm just saying it's basically the same thing but with plinkett in it.

And that's a problem because... ?

 

[Kyria the Great]

But what about the half in a bag review on it? I'm not defending the reboot on any sort like half of the feminist idiots, I'm just saying it's basically the same thing but with plinkett in it.

A plinkett review is more concise and goes in-depth where a Half in the Bag cannot.

 

[Durenduren]

And that's a problem because... ?

So you're saying HITB is shit? Okay.

 

[GabeRegan]

He surprised me when he went to bat for the actresses and said he thought all of them--even Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones--were funny in other movies he saw. Ironically the movie's main "controversy" and the reason all haters are sexist trolls played no part in this review. Mike focused entirely on the writing, directing, and soulless corporatism.

This is why Mike is such a good reviewer, he did the same thing during his Episode 1 review. While most people always point to Jar Jar for why the film is bad, Mike didn't talk about Jar Jar once and instead focused on the actual problems with the film. Anyone who says he's sexist for making the review is an idiot, since the first thing he does is point out the principle cast is actually talented but the script was written by two hacks.

I could've sworn they were connected to Lindsey Ellis of TGWTG fame, but I might be wrong on that.

They first showed up when Lindsey got drunk and pretended to be Starscream.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

This is why Mike is such a good reviewer, he did the same thing during his Episode 1 review. While most people always point to Jar Jar for why the film is bad, Mike didn't talk about Jar Jar once and instead focused on the actual problems with the film.

I recall reading something where Mike addressed this. He essentially said Jar Jar was a completely inconsequential part of the film's problems. The character had nothing to do with how its story was fundamentally broken almost to the point of recursion.