Ghostbusters 3 confirmed.

[Dr Mindbender]

Awesomeness. :D


http://estb.msn.com/i/57/D67C99743F877D73448179183EF041.jpg



25 Years On: Ghostbusters Is Back!



http://estb.msn.com/i/57/D67C99743F877D73448179183EF041.jpg
It's exactly 25 years since Ghostbusters was unleashed onto the world. Starring the genial comic talents of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis as a trio of ghoul-battling exterminators, it's undoubtedly one of the 1980s' funniest and most memorable movies.
Feeling nostalgic? Well so are the good people of Hollywood. Ghostbusters 3, starring the original trio from the 1984 classic, is headed for a release in 2012. As things stand at the moment, original director Ivan Reitman is also returning to the franchise.
If you can't wait that long, the original comes out on Blu-Ray on 15 June.
But Ghostbusters isn't the only 80s franchise making it's return in the years ahead. In a bid to draw in punters with movies they remember from the golden era of materialism and Michael Jackson, movie producers are bringing back a slew of 80s classics.

[Pirate Utopian]

Even though the first two are childhood favourites I'm gonna take the pessmistic route and say it will probably suck.

[Dr Mindbender]

Even though the first two are childhood favourites I'm gonna take the pessmistic route and say it will probably suck.

I don't care if it sucks or not, its Ghostbusters ffs!

Either way, my cinema ticket money is assured.

Besides, i fail to see how it can suck, all the elements from the prequels are present, Ivan Reitman, and the rest of the team are back.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Once again its lack of originality and willingness to take any sort of risk has lead Hollywood to rely on a remake/continuation of a film that wasn't very good to begin with.

[Invader Zim]

Starring the genial comic talents of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis as a trio of ghoul-battling exterminators

What about Ernie Hudson?


Once again its lack of originality and willingness to take any sort of risk has lead Hollywood to once again rely on a remake/continuation of a film that wasn't very good to begin with.

Your taste in film is shit.

[scarletghoul]

fuck yeah!!!

[Dr Mindbender]

What about Ernie Hudson?


Quite, i didnt write the article for this.

Maybe they couldnt get Ernie hudson back this time.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

wasn't very good to begin with.

Lies brother, lies.

Is G3 going to be live action? I remember reading a while back they were thinking of making a 3D animated movie out of it... I seriously hope they don't...

[Stranger Than Paradise]

quite, i didnt write the article for this.

Maybe they couldnt get ernie hudson back this time.

Ernie Hudson IS Ghostbusters

He is seriously my favourite.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I've been googling this, the most widespread plot rumour is that the original ghostbusters will feature fleetingly, whilst the main focus will be on new recruits... that isn't what I want to see :crying:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I've been googling this, the most widespread plot rumour is that the original ghostbusters will feature fleetingly, whilst the main focus will be on new recruits... that isn't what I want to see :crying:

They just butchered it completely with the 'new recruits' idea. That says to me they want to make another one after this one. I say leave it at two.

[Dr Mindbender]

Apparently the reason this has taken so long is because of Dan Akroyd.

Alledgedly, Bill Murray was very keen but Dan Akroyd was really dragging his heels. I have to say, i'm rather confused because my understanding was that thew new X box 360 and PS3 game was supposed to 'represent the new movie'.

I really hope the new recruits rumour is false. With some clever direction, the fact that they're old now could be a positive; it could be applied to the humour of the movie.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's a very sad commentary on modern culture that some people look back fondly on a movie like "Ghostbusters."

[berlitz23]

I agree people who are supporting the release of this film are becoming accomplices to their own betrayal by sustaining hollywood and its domineering, centralized control over our culture. Most people who claim they are socialist are in reality spurious because they still watch burgeois cinema....No one here is discussing about Godard's upcomign project "Socialisme" seriously most people on this website lack film taste embracing films like V for Vendetta and Watchmen

[GPDP]

I agree people who are supporting the release of this film are becoming accomplices to their own betrayal by sustaining hollywood and its domineering, centralized control over our culture. Most people who claim they are socialist are in reality spurious because they still watch burgeois cinema....No one here is discussing about Godard's upcomign project "Socialisme" seriously most people on this website lack film taste embracing films like V for Vendetta and Watchmen

Hollywood. Serious Business.

[Invader Zim]

It's a very sad commentary on modern culture that some people look back fondly on a movie like "Ghostbusters."

Just because you're a boring prick with no sense of humour desn't mean that the rest of us are also suffer the same affliction.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1466897#post1466897) I agree people who are supporting the release of this film are becoming accomplices to their own betrayal by sustaining hollywood and its domineering, centralized control over our culture. Most people who claim they are socialist are in reality spurious because they still watch burgeois cinema....No one here is discussing about Godard's upcomign project "Socialisme" seriously most people on this website lack film taste embracing films like V for Vendetta and Watchmen

You know there is a reason that Hollywood film studios are more successful than indie cinema, and that reason is that for the most part indie cinema is shockingly bad. The films that you see that make it from indie cinema are the rare gems of quality. Indeed most of the decent supposedly indie production companies are actually part of the major studios or media corporations. And, though it may come as a shock, ones politics aren't dictated by the films they watch. Though you clearly aren't a socialist either, because you have just admitted to wanting to watch and discuss Socialisme, a film being made by Wild Bunch (the same company responcible for travesties of taste such as Baise Moi), which is, as I recall, origionaly a subsiduary of StudioCanal. StudioCanal is part of the massive Vivendi, a media corporation worth not far off $60 billion; the same corporation that part-owns Universal Studios. Your idea that socialists should only watch indie cinema shows just how little you actually know about how the vast bulk of "indie" cinema is made. ANd the huge fucking irony is that one of the films you listed, V for Vendetta was primarily made by two indie film companies; Virtual Studios and Silver Pictures.

So you can take your holier-than-thou attitude, and ignorant views on film, elsewhere thanks.

[berlitz23]

I wasn't espousing we should watch exclusively watch indie cinema, conversely I am saying I think we need to explore films with more of an unequivocal and explicit political message which can precipitate a constructive dialogue about modern culture and its impact. Don't be presumptous and believe just because I have a strong aversion to hollywood automatically places me in the crowd who kowtows to indie films, "Indie" is an oxymoron either way, no such thing as indie cinema since basically every film is produced by a studio large or small. I seldom see anyone having a interesting discussions about films like ;man with a moving camera or strike! or 'weekend' hundreds of films that have a leftist dialogue, we make lists for people to watch but there is no film criticism or theory on this website. I am not a socialist either way too, you don't need to pigeonhole me in that category either way I am increasingly disgruntled and disconcerted with its message and authoritarianism as of late. Alright I am ready to be berated and lampooned!

[Il Medico]

No one here is discussing about Godard's upcomign project "Socialisme"
Then start a thread about it and stop complaining.


seriously most people on this website lack film taste embracing films like V for Vendetta and Watchmen
V for Vendetta was a good movie, and as said above, was a mostly indie project. Not all indie films have small budgets. The Edukators for example had a huge budget, although I don't see why it would need one.

[Invader Zim]

I wasn't espousing we should watch exclusively watch indie cinema,

You said that watching bourgeois cinema an socialism are incompatable, which presumes, wrongly, that there is anything other than bourgeois cinema. The film industry exists to make money, be it Jea-Luk Godard attempting to market socialism through the medium of film or Harold Ramis making a comedy about a team of ghost catchers.


conversely I am saying I think we need to explore films with more of an unequivocal and explicit political message which can precipitate a constructive dialogue about modern culture and its impact.

Or, in other words, boring cliched films.


Don't be presumptous and believe just because I have a strong aversion to hollywood automatically places me in the crowd who kowtows to indie films, "Indie" is an oxymoron either way, no such thing as indie cinema since basically every film is produced by a studio large or small.

I presumed that you must be a fan of indie cinema because of your arrogant distain for Hollywood films that people may actually enjoy and cheerleading of an upcoming example of what promises, like the majority of Godard's films, to be an extremely tedious example of indie cinema shown only in the most pretentious back street arthouse cinemas. That and your attack on Hollywood cinema and subsequent attack on leftists who watch 'burgeois cinema', which we are left to presume are the same thing because you don't tell us otherwise.


I seldom see anyone having a interesting discussions about films like ;man with a moving camera or strike! or 'weekend' hundreds of films that have a leftist dialogue

Have you considred that is because people don't want to watch what I assume are probably extremely esoteric films made inter-war era?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes "people." It's all the "people's" fault. People love mundane, mindless, repetitive film with recycled jokes and rehashed plot lines. "People" prefer loud noises over content. "People" are reactionary by nature and have no interest in portrayals of real life or the problems they face. That's for "leftists" not "people." It's the "people!"

No, the reality is that when you're fed shit you're whole life, even a semi-digested piece of corn looks tasty.

"People" don't determine what kinds of movies are made. They simply choose from what's made available to them by the studios.

The talk of "indie" films is rather pointless too. Even if an "indie" film is great, the majority of the population will have no access to it anyway.

Films like the recent "Che" epic (with a trailer never shown on TV, the movie itself shown a few times at odd hours in theaters 'off the beaten track' on a rotating city-by-city schedule with overpriced tickets) are promoted and shown in ways that severely limit access to working people.

Hollywood continues to rot. Cinema has gone downhill since the earliest days of blacklisting. Any serious observer realizes that.

I guess those who revert to juvenile name calling in place of an argument would find movies like "Ghostbusters" desirable. Maybe the fact that such garbage has been steadily pumped into "popular culture" for decades has a part to play in that.

[Dr Mindbender]

It's a very sad commentary on modern culture that some people look back fondly on a movie like "Ghostbusters."

I think the main subject matter is largely irrelevant. I don't think you're giving the movie the credit that it's due.

The reason people like Ghostbusters is because they relate to the characters. Being fairly normal albeit with 'proton packs' they suffer from afflictions which people are able to identify with. Also, the diologue is humorously written, people like to time out now and again.

As has been implied several times on this thread already, chill the fuck out.

[berlitz23]

Well do we want to pinpoint one of the underlying reasons that subsume 'counter-revolution' it is because of Hollywood producing these inane, vapid films or sequels like Transformers that are thwarting revolution. Why are films like Godard and art house films reduced to an art house? well let me guess because they don't bear the homogenized message that capitalism likes to disseminate amongst the masses, you can charge them as being esoteric I don't care, but should we also classify Vertovian and Eisenstienian cinema too in that category because their films if shown to the public nowadays are in the art-houses. "Boring and Cliched" Films ok, I can deduct from your statement that we should be championing films that encourage a certain passive spectatorship, an acceptance of that barrage of assaultive information and shocks which characterize work. Also we shoud watch films that are almost always contained within rational packages with beginnings, middles, and ends, mitigate any kind of radical content. I am asserting is that Film has been disfigured by its very theoretical foundantions. Film plays on the deep seated emotional fears and desires at the expense of the audience’s intelligence and ability to think critically. I believe the filmviewer should not be taken advantage of that he should not be manipulated emotionally but should instead be addressed directly which should summon the maximum capacity for their human faculties. Film is carefully calculated to invite the viewer to indlgle in ‘lived’ emotional experience of a seo called slice of life instead of assuming a critical, analyical ultimately political attitude toward what they say. I adamantly subscribe to the idea that film should be a dialogue betwen the viewer and itself, I despise how most of sit back tacit, our faculties attenuated, our alienation exploited, our reality warped by these spurious lifestyles characters in films are savouring.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As has been implied several times on this thread already, chill the fuck out.

Sorry I thought this was the section of the forum where we discussed film and literature. I didn't know it's was an apolitical place to find out which of the horrendous movies coming out of Hollywood you're excited most about.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Invader Zim]

Yes "people." It's all the "people's" fault. People love mundane, mindless, repetitive film with recycled jokes and rehashed plot lines. "People" prefer loud noises over content. "People" are reactionary by nature and have no interest in portrayals of real life or the problems they face. That's for "leftists" not "people." It's the "people!"

Nobody has said anything like that. Why don't you try being honest and addressing what has been said, as opposed to inventing an easily attacked position and attributing it to those you are debating?


No, the reality is that when you're fed shit you're whole life, even a semi-digested piece of corn looks tasty.

Why not just call it degenerate art and organise a mass burning?

Thank god that we have you here to tell us what to read, what to watch and what to listen to.

See, I can twist your words too.



"People" don't determine what kinds of movies are made. They simply choose from what's made available to them by the studios. Not directly perhaps, but cinema changes as the tastes change. That is because films that don't appeal don't sell and, as stated, the film industry is about making money.


Films like the recent "Che" epic (with a trailer never shown on TV, the movie itself shown a few times at odd hours in theaters 'off the beaten track' on a rotating city-by-city schedule with overpriced tickets) are promoted and shown in ways that severely limit access to working people.Well thats funny, because I saw both parts of Che after I had finished work at my local cinema in the centre of town and paid a standard price for tickets. I guess like my degenerate taste in art my memory must also be faulty.




Hollywood continues to rot. Cinema has gone downhill since the earliest days of blacklisting. Any serious observer realizes that.Which is why every single film in the IMDb top 10 was written after 1947... oh wait.



I guess those who revert to juvenile name calling in place of an argument would find movies like "Ghostbusters" desirable. As usual, you're confused. You haven't made an argument. All you have done is show that you have an utterly elitist attitude when it comes to cinema.


Well do we want to pinpoint one of the underlying reasons that subsume 'counter-revolution' it is because of Hollywood producing these inane, vapid films or sequels like Transformers that are thwarting revolution.

As so counter revolution is down to films like transformers? What caused the collapse of the Berlin Wall? Die Hard?


Why are films like Godard and art house films reduced to an art house?Probably because most people think they are as tedious as they are cliched, and only film students and the pretentious have any desire to watch them.


well let me guess because they don't bear the homogenized message that capitalism likes to disseminate amongst the massesNo, because they have no appeal to the majority of people. But that isn't to say that all films with an interesting social commentary are destined to collect dust. If they are good and catch peoples interest they are watched; I'm think of film makers like Ken Loach. Godard, on the other hand makes films that don't attract interest.


I can deduct from your statement that we should be championing films that encourage a certain passive spectatorship, an acceptance of that barrage of assaultive information and shocks which characterize work. Also we shoud watch films that are almost always contained within rational packages with beginnings, middles, and ends, mitigate any kind of radical content.You can deduct what you like, but all being told you have no idea what films I like because I haven't told you.

The reality is I don't care what films are made, there is a place for Hollywood films that a large number of people will watch and enjoy because they have appeal to a wide audience, and there is a place for Jean-Luk Godard and his ilk. What pisses me off is that you, adn individuals such as NHIA patronise and condesend to the rest of us who don't watch the same tedious rubbish you enjoy. Somehow we are worse people because we want to watch Ghost Busters. Instead you expect us to wax lyrical about films about films only you, and very few other people, actually watched or, for that matter, want to watch.

[Dr Mindbender]

Sorry I thought this was the section of the forum where we discussed film and literature.
Ghostbusters, being a film, yes...


I didn't know it's was an apolitical place to find out which of the horrendous movies coming out of Hollywood you're excited most about.
Well it's all subjective, and why does every film need a political context?

Other than the sci fi theme and flashing lights, i think the characters are likeable, and to me that is the most important thing.


Thanks for the clarification.
*snore*

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well it's all subjective, and why does every film need a political context?

I'll ignore the fact that you're asking me this on a political message board and answer that everything has a "political context."

[Pirate Utopian]

Yes, cant you see the Ghostbusters are clearly capitalist oppressors of the ghost proletarians who are revolting against the establishment.
The politics in the Ghostbusters really stare you in the face dont it?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What a surprise... some of the most apolitical posters on this board don't see how politics relate to culture.

[Plagueround]

One of the more self-defeating things communists like to do is scathingly rally against people for the silliest things. I'm sure the way to gain mass appeal is to treat anyone who likes a farcical sci-fi film like a complete idiot. Workers unite!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well do we want to pinpoint one of the underlying reasons that subsume 'counter-revolution' it is because of Hollywood producing these inane, vapid films or sequels like Transformers that are thwarting revolution. Why are films like Godard and art house films reduced to an art house? well let me guess because they don't bear the homogenized message that capitalism likes to disseminate amongst the masses, you can charge them as being esoteric I don't care, but should we also classify Vertovian and Eisenstienian cinema too in that category because their films if shown to the public nowadays are in the art-houses. "Boring and Cliched" Films ok, I can deduct from your statement that we should be championing films that encourage a certain passive spectatorship, an acceptance of that barrage of assaultive information and shocks which characterize work. Also we shoud watch films that are almost always contained within rational packages with beginnings, middles, and ends, mitigate any kind of radical content. I am asserting is that Film has been disfigured by its very theoretical foundantions. Film plays on the deep seated emotional fears and desires at the expense of the audience’s intelligence and ability to think critically. I believe the filmviewer should not be taken advantage of that he should not be manipulated emotionally but should instead be addressed directly which should summon the maximum capacity for their human faculties. Film is carefully calculated to invite the viewer to indlgle in ‘lived’ emotional experience of a seo called slice of life instead of assuming a critical, analyical ultimately political attitude toward what they say. I adamantly subscribe to the idea that film should be a dialogue betwen the viewer and itself, I despise how most of sit back tacit, our faculties attenuated, our alienation exploited, our reality warped by these spurious lifestyles characters in films are savouring.

Inane culture is "thwarting revolution"? Like a good post-modernist, you seem to see the world upside down. Culture doesn't cause revolution or thwart it, it is a reflection of society: 1970s films were more experimental and interesting, yes well the late 60s and early 70s were more interesting and volatile and people were taking things into their own hands. Even Godart was effected by the revolt around him and "Tout Va Bien" and other films reflect that.

1. There is nothing wrong with escapism - why would audiences not want to escape their daily lives in capitalism? Why not see a football game on TV, drink some beers, watch the new Start Trek movie, and generally get away from a world where your stupid boss and the cops and rich assholes rule.

I worked at a viedo store for many years and do you know who generally watched the latest radical film or documentary to "challenge themselves"? -- Yuppies. Yuppies love these films because what do they have to escape from? Why imagine a world where you are fighting zombies when you have an iphone and a house and you are your own boss and make your own hours? Instead they like to watch movies to challenge themselves - there, don't you feel like a better rich-asss yuppie for watching "Solaris"? I know you do (I would think as they droped the movies off with a satisfied grin of self-importantness).

2. Hollywood is not a pure ideological factory - certantly film is under the pressure of ruling class ideas - as are books, music and workers themselves. Hollywood has always had to pander to a certain populism because they know as much as people want wish fufillment in seeing a "rags to riches story" they also enjoy a Mr. Burns getting kicked in balls by one of his workers on the Simpsons. People like Charlie Chaplain made formulaic "beginning -middle-and-end" stories but was popular because his character was a homelessman who often outsmarted authorities and the rich.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, cant you see the Ghostbusters are clearly capitalist oppressors of the ghost proletarians who are revolting against the establishment.
The politics in the Ghostbusters really stare you in the face dont it?

Now, (noticing your profile image) "Return of the Living Dead" - that's an awesome movie! One of my faves just under "Battle of Algiers".

My Zombie movie theory is that the underlying message of all (well most) the Zombie movies of the last 10 years is that most people would be better off under Zombies than Capitalism.

No, listen: "Shaun of the Dead" "28 days later" and "the Dawn of the Dead" (remake) have protagonists who were low level nobodies (Shaun-retail, 28days-bike messenger, Dawn-Retail/failedfather) who become leaders and heroes after capitalist society falls from the rise of the zombies.

[berlitz23]

I wasn't explicitly stating that films spur revolution, yet they possesses a latent fecundity to distribute information on an immediate level opposed to literature and other mediums. I am not simply naive and duped into thinking that film content will radically change, but why can we not challenge the audience to think? Is that the culprit to raise awarneness and trigger a new conscious. Again, you are being a bit reductionistic in your analysis of Godardian or Continental Cinema but clumping all those who enjoy that cinema as elitist, snobbish, conceited, condescending when in reality it is not true. Perhaps, there are people who are disgruntled with Hollywood promulgating the right morals, values, and ideas that we should adhere to and rigourously ensure will survive. We are surfeited with ineffectual decorative feelings and activities without aim on the screen, uniquely devoted to the pleasureable and picturesque; I am advocating a cinema that functions activily, elastically and intellectually. I don't see how Ken Loach has garnered an audience greater than Godard, his films are never released in major cinemas not in the US at least, only way to see him is through DVD. Secondly, I wouldn't say Godard doesn't have a following, in fact he has a major following where I reside and does attract interest when he is playing at my local theater, it looks like fundamentally different cultures here we are living. I don't mean to come off arrogant and inevitably I guess I do, but I come on Revleft to engage in intriguing conversations about art and film, but what are we discussing about Ghostbusters? Can we discuss about some films that have bore a major impact on us perhaps, films that do bear a profound message, a reflection on ourselves and society. Finally, proceed to tell me what are your favourite films? I would like to reach a middle ground here instead of both of us rebuking each other.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

One of the more self-defeating things communists like to do is scathingly rally against people for the silliest things. I'm sure the way to gain mass appeal is to treat anyone who likes a farcical sci-fi film like a complete idiot. Workers unite!

No one said anything even remotely like that.

The movie in question was criticized along with the industry that spawns such trash.

The only one talking about the people who watch these kinds of movies was (surprise) a guy arguing in favor of them.

[Pirate Utopian]

Now, (noticing your profile image) "Return of the Living Dead" - that's an awesome movie! One of my faves just under "Battle of Algiers".

My Zombie movie theory is that the underlying message of all (well most) the Zombie movies of the last 10 years is that most people would be better off under Zombies than Capitalism.

No, listen: "Shaun of the Dead" "28 days later" and "the Dawn of the Dead" (remake) have protagonists who were low level nobodies (Shaun-retail, 28days-bike messenger, Dawn-Retail/failedfather) who become leaders and heroes after capitalist society falls from the rise of the zombies.
George A. Romero often used loads of underlying politics in his movies while stay remaining entertaining for those who just wanted to watch a movie.
Night had lots of messages about the Vietnam war and racism, Dawn attacked consumerism, Day did it to dictatorship and Land made some biting critism on post-9/11 US.

Also, 28 Days Later despite being a decent movie isnt a z-movie, the infected didnt die and come back.

[Invader Zim]

I wasn't explicitly stating that films spur revolution,

No, you were explicity saying that poor Hollywood films 'thwart' revolution:

"Well do we want to pinpoint one of the underlying reasons that subsume 'counter-revolution' it is because of Hollywood producing these inane, vapid films or sequels like Transformers that are thwarting revolution."


but why can we not challenge the audience to think?As stated, I don't have a problem with pretentious art house films as long as I'm not expected to bore myself into a coma watching them, my problem is with pretentious individuals with elitist attitudes who think that because they watch films that nobody else wants to see they can condesend to the rest of us.


Is that the culprit to raise awarneness and trigger a new conscious.But you stated that it is socialists who should be watching this kind of tedious drivel: "Most people who claim they are socialist are in reality spurious because they still watch burgeois cinema....No one here is discussing about Godard's upcomign project "Socialisme""

So socialists, who presumably are already conscious to the social commentary in these films, should have to watch these films (as you asserted above) why?

Do you like having opinions you already hold constantly reinforced by art house film makers?


but I come on Revleft to engage in intriguing conversations about art and film, but what are we discussing about Ghostbusters?

Well there is an easy solution to that, don't post in this thread. If you want to discuss Socialisme and films of that ilk, start a thread on it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

For me the overall point is that yes, film is a powerful medium and because of the expenses and technical skills required to produce feature films, cinema under capitalism is held back. Movies in Hollywood and Bollywood are designed to do only one thing: make money.

However, Holly/Bollywood have all the money, materials, and draw the most skillful people to them and so they can, at times, make an impressive product that people identify with and enjoy. Hollywood films are self-limiting because of their commercialism, but they also have to be somewhat responsive to what the public wants to see. Therefore in radical times, film has taken more radical choices - both Hollywood and art-house films.

I have no doubt that when film resources and training are more democratically allocated after a revolution we will see more creativity and diversity in cinema than we can even comprehend, but until that time, if you want to see radical culture, then it is up to us to create a more radical and political atmosphere in society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's a very sad commentary on modern culture that some people look back fondly on a movie like "Ghostbusters."

Not really. A lot of people (such as myself) here probably saw Ghostbusters when they were younger, and have memories associated with that. It's not a great film, in my opinion, but it is a fairly fun movie. And yes, Hollywood has run out of ideas.

I don't think that the films people look back fondly on has a whole hell of a lot to do with a "commentary on modern culture". I look back fondly on watching the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (my favorite film), but I hardly see that as a statement on anything other than my own personal tastes. (And no, I don't regard The Texas Chainsaw Massacre as the apex of the cinematic artform.)

[MarxSchmarx]

It's a very sad commentary on modern culture that some people look back fondly on a movie like "Ghostbusters." Not really. A lot of people (such as myself) here probably saw Ghostbusters when they were younger, and have memories associated with that. It's not a great film, in my opinion, but it is a fairly fun movie. And yes, Hollywood has run out of ideas.

I don't think that the films people look back fondly on has a whole hell of a lot to do with a "commentary on modern culture". I look back fondly on watching the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (my favorite film), but I hardly see that as a statement on anything other than my own personal tastes. (And no, I don't regard The Texas Chainsaw Massacre as the apex of the cinematic artform.)

Good point. "Looking back fondly" is a very different standard from appreciating the cinematic effects, much less the political commentary.

Largely apolitical comedies are a case in point. Sure, one can always find "the political" in a well made comedy.

But I think we all appreciate humor that speaks to absurdities in every day life, under virtually any regime, more generally. Reflecting fondly upon depictions of such contradictions seems to me largely fair.

While perhaps in some sense political, such moments of comic relief are only marginally political that one wonders whether analyzing them from a political angle is at all appropriate.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The point is it's not even a "well made comedy."

[Invader Zim]

The point is it's not even a "well made comedy."

Other than ego, what makes you an expert in film production?

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I'm not sure what constitutes a 'well made comedy'. There can be films with a very limited budget, but they're well written and the acting isn't bad, on the side of the coin, there are abominations of movies which have an astronomical budget behind them.

For all of it's shortcomings, which I personally find endearing, Ghostbusters wasn't bad - in my opinion anyway. But the contention over whether or not it's trash isn't really a political debate, just the fact it's a subjective matter of taste. The same way we could debate whether or not hip hop is art, the bottom line is however that turns out, some people will like it, some wont.

Sure there's a "political context" surrounding Ghostbusters, insofar as the inudstry that spawned it. But putting aside lifestylism, I think it's pretty irrelevant for the 'enjoyment factor' of the film. I was going to say, it doesn't exactly 'exhonerate' the American Dream in the same way that say, The Persuit of Happiness does; but then again... Three unemployed parapsychology professors set up shop as a unique ghost removal service which becomes pretty lucrative and they turn out to save the city of New York...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sure there's a "political context" surrounding Ghostbusters, insofar as the inudstry that spawned it. But putting aside lifestylism, I think it's pretty irrelevant for the 'enjoyment factor' of the film. I was going to say, it doesn't exactly 'exhonerate' the American Dream in the same way that say, The Persuit of Happiness does; but then again... Three unemployed parapsychology professors set up shop as a unique ghost removal service which becomes pretty lucrative and they turn out to save the city of New York...

I thought the first Ghostbusters was funny and enjoyable, but as far as the political outlook of the movie, it's pretty libertarian. The close-minded people are the University faculty, and the guy from the EPA - a lot of the comedies made during this time were much worse.

American comedy in general has a very libertarian outlook. I think the counter-cultural anti-authority (against the military, police, and politicians) in comedy in the earl 70s, became libertarian anti-autority by the late 70s (if you are petty bourgoise, the "authority" to rebel against are beurocrats in big business and government). South Park is the best/worst example of this and even the daily show staff consider their politics to be "libertarian".

[Edelweiss]

Parts of this thread remind me me of a satire about humorless communists. If someone would show this conversation in a movie, now that would be good comedy. :D

[black magick hustla]

hollywood is garbage and boring. art movies like goddamn godard are boring and only illiterate hipster scum like them.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Other ego, what makes you an expert in film production?

Where did I say I was an "expert in film production?"


Parts of this thread remind me me of a satire about humorless communists.

Yeah, if someone doesn't think Ghostbusters is funny then they must be a "humorless communist."

[Dr Mindbender]

What a surprise... some of the most apolitical posters on this board don't see how politics relate to culture.

Sorry, Lenin.

Well at least this thread has started somewhat of a debate, you cant deny that.

[Invader Zim]

Where did I say I was an "expert in film production?"

You proclaimed that Ghostbusters is poorly constructed; I wish to know what qualifies you to make such a pronouncement.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The same thing that qualifies Ulster Socialist to say it's a good film.

[Invader Zim]

The same thing that qualifies Ulster Socialist to say it's a good film.

To state that you believe a film is 'good' is a statement of opinion that requires no knowledge beyond knowing that you enjoyed watching it. To pass comment on the quality of a film's construction implicitly implies some kind of knowledge of the actual processes involved in film production.

[berlitz23]

We can parse the argument down like this: there's a Rule and an exception. Culture is the rule and art is the exception.

[Guerrilla22]

No Ernie Hudson, seriously wtf? I'll still go see this movie though, even though film franchises brought back after 20 or more years generally suck (see Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Rocky) after all the Ghostbusters saved New York from paranormal threats twice, the least we should go see this new movie out of respect for their efforts.