1601 Dog Catcher.

by

Finally got to the 2016 Ghostbusters. I thought it was pretty good. It’s no classic of comedy but I’d watch another one for sure. The hot pink proton beams were a bit on the nose, but whatever. The fact that the bad guy was every arrogant shithead I’ve ever met and was, was a nice touch. There were absolutely some things I wouldn’t have done, but it was fine on average. The last fight really felt like the intro to the cartoon, which was a bit much. I’m looking forward to the lego Dimensions version to play through. Honestly I could talk about it for a lot longer, but the internet took care of that shit, as we all know.

I did a drawing for patreon that I decided to just share with everybody. You can download the full size version here.

I want to do more, but I don’t know if I’ll have time. I’m still trying to claw my way back to having a week of buffer. Anyway, if you feel like supporting me via that thing all the hipster fuckfaces are using feel free to click on Nina in the sidebar. I would have hosted it in the underblog but I can’t remember how to anymore.

40 Comments

You liked Ghostbusters 2016.

Expect a lot of flaming, insults, and so on for daring to do so.

I get that for my own work, getting it for someone else’s is like background noise to me.

I have seen all of maybe 15 minutes of the 2016 Ghostbusters. does it ever get better than : We’re just having females play the male roles from the original: ?

The 2016 version is not a remake, it is not a sequel, it is a homage.
The plot is very different (so not remake) and ignores earlier movies (so not sequel). The characters do reference the original in some ways, and there are a lot of cameos. Bill Murrey shot down 2 or 3 attempts to do a new ghostbusters movie and this is the first one he ok’d.

Maybe Nina should stop being a judgemental asshat. “How DARE someone stupid have a job that I want????”

Yeah, also isn’t that the point of free market, that Americans so often praise? Employers being able to hire whoever they want?
Someone got a job you want, and furthermore, it’s someone unqualified? Well tough, you just have to deal with it.

That’s just small thinking. You can bring down anyone given enough time and information…

As much as this will be my judgmental asshat side shining, I must second Nina’s notion to be angered at such an outrageous decision being made by the head librarian. Free market or not, it’s always a competitive one, and Maddy is anything but competent. To see someone intellectually inferior to you also being paid better than you (potentially)…that’s what we call “twisting the knife”.

I think everyone is missing the point. Here we have someone who was part of a tragedy, probably blamed herself before, and slowly got over it. Seeing someone with lower intelligence in the position and knowing that the person in charge of the library may still hold perceived resentment toward her, affirms ninas belief that the accident was hee fault

And as a human being, all those feelings of terrible ickyness will resurface, and possible precipitate anger our resentment toward the library owner.
I also think the library owner has at least a 50 % chance of being not resentful toward nina at all, and the fact that nina was not hired was for some other extraneous reason.

The question of how Thomas can help with this is a more complicated one. Nina will not respond to traditional “it wasn’t your fault” speeches because to her, she has just discovered proof to the contrary. I think Edward, a neutral, uninformed party, whom Nina can and has opened up to, needs to get her to talk through what happened. And that could be a while before it will be wise to do so. Edward and Nina are just now starting to date, so I can’t imagine Nina spilling the beans quite yet. And also, with Edward being new to the idea of having a girlfriend, would not be game to screwing up a good thing with deep and potentially relationship altering conversation. I think later on, Edward and Nina would gain a stronger relationship through her explanation of what happened, but it’s to soon for that.

My fear, Crave, is that Edward will be all chivalrous when he discovers his newfound love is troubled, and prus too hard to get her to talk, and she shots down not only the conversation, but the relationship.

Personally, I found the movie to be just a pile of shit that tried too hard, reached too far, and ended up with nothing more than some hollow praise and a few bucks in pocket.

But to each their own.

I only ever saw the trailers. From them, I decided that $10 of my money and 2 hours of my life (more like 3 counting travel time to the theater) were too high a price to pay.

On another forum, a forum-goer (who liked the film) described the trailers as “aggressively unfunny”. It was that aggressive quality, combined all the political hoo-haw that really put me off the film. It was as if the trailers were poking me in the chest demanding I prove my feminist credentials by going to a movie, which by its trailers seemed calculated to repel me.

Haven’t seen it yet, but now that it’s available beyond theaters I’ve got it on hold at the local library.

I was excited when it was announced, intrigued when the cast was assembled, and disappointed when the first trailer looked like they had turned the library ghost into an overly-long puke gag.

i really liked the GB of this year as well. Its pretty fine on its own. Though on a second viewwing i’d get raelly tired of just hoooow dumb they made the one character.
and i wish they had put that dance scene properly in the movie. .but at least it wa during the credits.
I hope they release the version with less cuts too. I wanna see.

on the comic portion..
I really hope its revealaed the girl has a damn masters in library science or something or a BA in it or something.
Cause I’m really getting tired of the response to someone who just happens to be happy go lucky. Not like those two portions are related.
haha but not sure why its annoying me as much as it does. Go figure.

I think it was confirmed earlier in the commentary that Maddie isn’t exactly bright compared to Alex and the others, at least in the things they value. I could be very wrong though.

Come on Reggie don’t you know even monsters love puppies

Even people who are dim can have exceptional organization skills. And as long as they understand how the dewey decimal system works they wouldn’t have a problem doing the job.

Yep, very true. I’ve…seen things…you people wouldn’t believe.

It’s very easy to put people into [personal] predefined categories of intelligence based on extremely limited evidence or firsthand experience of the person. Everyone is guilty of it to some extent or another, but some people try harder to be objective or focus on the positives rather than the negatives. In Nina’s case, her usually level-headed judgement (and accepting personality) is clouded by emotional trauma, which is understandable even if one doesn’t approve of it.

The most important thing to remember is that we’re all human (so far as we know), and that means it’s best to try and follow the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”) with every human interaction. :)

Personally, I absolutely loathed the ghostbusters reboot. And I know what people are going to say, because they’ve been saying it every time: “Oh, you’re just a misogynistic bigot who can’t stand to see females in movies!” But I can assure you, that is not the case. And now, I shall explain in great detail why:

I hated the movie for a number of reasons, but the main cast being female had absolutely nothing to do with it. I hated the movie when it came out the year before, had an all male cast, and it was called “Pixels.” My only beef with those actresses is the fact that none of them are funny – and in a comedy movie, that’s kind of a big issue. Another big issue is that Paul Feig cannot direct his way out of a paper bag, and especially cannot direct an action scene. I’ve seen Michael Bay flicks that were more comprehensible when it comes to action scenes! The script was sub-par, with fart jokes and vomit jokes and other pieces of “humor” overly reliant on appealing to the lowest common denominator. No intelligence, no subtlety, no finesse, just idiocy. Not to mention, they also decided that the smart move would be to use “jokes” based around the bad sort of feminism – the militant sort that says “all men are idiots no matter what, and need to be punched in the dick and killed simply for existing” that ACTUAL feminists disassociate themselves from. The only somewhat positive thing I can say about the movie is that the downward decline of the series created by the utterly dreadful Ghostbusters II has continued, so at least they’re being consistent.

But more than anything else? The thing that pissed me off THE MOST about that movie was the dedication. They had the effrontery – the bare-faced CHEEK! – to put “For Harold” in the credits. And that pisses me off to no end, because I REMEMBER when they announced they were gonna make this movie. It was a week after he died. A WEEK! They couldn’t wait more than A SINGLE FUCKING WEEK after Harold Ramis died before they announced they were making this pile.

Seriously. Fuck that movie.

The movie isn’t nearly as bad as pixels. Although I have to agree that the comedy is not subtle. There are isolated moments of it, but on average it’s broad. What surprised me is how many jokes that were clearly better weren’t chosen in many scenes. The language of the film, and I mean specific word choices, is base in most cases.

The main reason I use Pixels as a comparison is because the trailers were shot-for-shot identical. And it’s true, the movie would have to be trying pretty fucking hard to be as bad as Pixels. But then, Adam Sandler has had years to perfect his particular “brand” of not-comedy.

Even so, my last point still stands. Their disrespect of Harold Ramis is tasteless to a degree that I did not think possible.

I don’t see what in particular is so disrespectful.

Harold Ramis didn’t want to make another Ghostbusters. And when the video game came out, we found out why: Dan Aykroyd’s ever worsening madness would inevitably infect the final product, like it did with Ghostbusters 2 and everything else Aykroyd has worked on since 1989.

So when they announce they’re rebooting the franchise a week after he died, it seemed to me like they were just waiting for him to kick the bucket. All I wanted was for them to show a little respect for the dead. Wait for the corpse to get settled in his grave before you make him start spinning in it, for fuck sake.

Crave, you have been usurped. You are no longer the most famous person following me on Twitter… Now Tay Zonday is among my followers.

My time has come.

Much like Reggie’s delusions of grandeur, my time to shine is upon me.

The new Ghostbusters film is completely dissimilar to the earlier movies, but because it’s a remake, people have to compare them anyway. The people who bother to compare them are the people who loved the earlier movies, and as I said, they’re dissimilar; they’re both comedies, but they approach it differently, which means that the people who loved the first one most probably have different tastes than what the new one is offering. Of course, it’s possible to enjoy both types, which is why people like you can enjoy the new one and the old one.

The point is, comparing a remake to an older version of the film usually goes unfavourably for the remake, and that’s because the comparison is prejudiced in the first place by the nature of people who are in a position to compare them, and the prejudice coming from the anti-feminists doesn’t help, so a 72% on RottenTomatoes is pretty good.

While I would say the movie is a solid 7/10, I don’t know if I would trust the Rotten Tomatoes score. A lot of people on the other side treated it like the coming of the feminism messiah (even the people who made it and watching it, it had little if anything to do with feminism). People went crazy over a film which in the end had no real political or social message in it. It’s not like they tried to hammer in that they were mistreated because they were women.

Rant aside, I think in terms of the actual content, it’s plot was it’s weakest point. It was more like a series of comedy sketches tied loosely together with a plot. Also, Bill Murray’s cameo was shit and not funny, nor nearly as entertaining as the other actor’s cameos.

I know it’s late but I’ll leave my 2 cents: I thought Ghostbusters 2016 was a fine movie. Some parts were good, some were bad, but I’d watch it again. Really, it would’ve passed under the radar if not for it being Ghostbusters and everyone, including the people making it, flipping out about having a female main cast and a male dumb secretary.

As for Maddie, I’m sorry she seems like she’s at least air-headed, potentially slightly below average intelligence, certainly absent mindedn. I can understand a moment of pettiness from Nina over that, especially because it seems well indicated Nina IS qualified for a position in the library. Maddie is very nice though and I doubt Nina holds a grudge against her personally.

To hell with BallBusters.

In the final panel, petition to add a second speech bubble (lower right?): “I’m not!”.

Personally, I liked the 2016 Ghostbusters, but I also liked Paper Mario: Color Splash, which is apparently considered the antichrist by the Paper Mario community. (Then again, there’s also Sticker Star.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.