CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:58 pm
I have nothing against the cast and give them props for giving it their all but the script was terribad.
I think it also failed at being a feminist interpretation because it actually was more sexist in some ways because all of the women were complete goofballs and "The Ray." The original Ghostbusters had Sigourney Weaver not as a Ghostbuster but as a serious professional who took her danger seriously. Everything was just a bit too...silly.
The Alt-Right is dangerous but that's because they're desperate to prove themselves. It's the poseurs who you need to worry about.
Yeah, they had Melissa McCarthy and Kate McKinnon and they somehow WEREN'T getting the most screen time, it was obvious neither was writing their own material or well-suited for the scripts they were given, and most critically, they only ever had 2 Ghostbusters talk to each other.
Like, the original would have jokes where 2-4 Ghostbusters were in the scene. That gave the actors more variety to do, more opportunity to stretch and play off each other. The reboot only ever had two doing a funny scene at the same time, and mostly it was McCarthy and the other dark-haired white girl, which just didn't work because McCarthy would've played off of McKinnon better.
This isn't even complicated stuff, this is literally freshman-seminar-on-the-history-of-comedy stuff. Successful comedy ensemble acts shake it up and have multiple characters playing off of each other, if it's a glorified double act the other ensemble members just sort of stick out like fifth wheels and the two mains won't come off as well because (since it's an ensemble act) they'll usually both be the straight men while the ensemble members relegated to supporting cast are the short men, which is EXACTLY what happened with the Ghostbusters reboot.
Also they had a tonally jarring mix of comedy and serious that didn't work as well as the original, probably because they winked at the camera too much.
As to your other point, the only thing the alt-right are good at is bullying people and murder. Their rallies are always smaller than they promise, their boycotts never actually work (and in fact sometimes have an OPPOSITE effect) and the only people of note that they've produced are three serial killers, a guy who drove his car into a crowd, and a bunch of online bullies whose idea of "triggering the libs" is to make nonsensical low-quality photoshops of Angry Joe with pink marker drawn over his hair and to scream "POTUSMAGA, YOU LIBCUCK SOYBOY!" like that instantly wins arguments for them.
As political movements go, that's one that's doomed to be pathetic little morlocks forever. Dangerous? Yeah. Some alt-right types have killed dozens of people. Dylan Roof's going to get lethal injection for it, IIRC. But also just plain pathetic. I mean, seriously, yes they're Nazis, but the OG Nazis couped a major country and launched a genocidal war across three continents that left 11 million dead from their death camps alone and millions more from the casualties, death squads, and fallout of war. These guys send rape threats on Twitter, and unlike the OG Nazis who had the balls (and lack of sanity) to take on the physically impossible task of fighting the USA AND the USSR simultaneously, these guys only attack vulnerable people and lack the courage to face their opposition in real life.
I know they're dangerous, but they're dangerous in the same way a starving half-drowned plague rat is. It can fuck you up if you're stupid and not careful, but it's also...really, really pathetic. Except this starving half-drowned plague rat is dressed up like Napoleon and swearing up and down that it's actually a rabid bear. Which somehow makes it more pathetic and disgusting.
