As there seems to be no thread made to discuss movies and shows in general (except for the forever-dead General Discussion), so I thought it'd be a good idea to now make a thread doing exactly that. To start a neat topic... I'm willing to check this show out (good thing I have Netflix in the first place) this summer! So far, I heard a lot of positives for the show, so I'm having high hopes for the show.
With what all I've seen about it, it looks really good. I don't have Netflix though. And I tell you one thing, the fandom is absolutely head over heels for Haida, or Heinrich as he was originally called in the original shorts.
It also includes death metal sung by nonetheless, the protagonist Retsuko. Also, a little fun fact: One of the companies that worked on this show is Sanrio, the same company that made the popular Hello Kitty. Wrap your mind around that.
I know, I've never thought about death metal as a way to vent anger and frustration. IMO that's pretty creative on their part. And yeah, who would've guessed that the same people behind Hello Kitty would be behind it.
Considering I don't see a lot of anime using metal as much as US shows, it's pretty new for me to see such music in a anime. (But I appreciate it anyways) I did find it a bit strange that they decided to go from Hello Kitty to Aggretsuko, but making more broader characters for a older audience was a great risk (especially when you get positive reputation/thoughts) to take.
Just watched episodes 4-9... It's really good, especially with the characters Retsuko (and likely Resasuke as well).
Honoured to be a sponsor of a Mosasaurs for the DPG! http://www.dinosaurprotectiongroup.com/ Not my real name btw
Sorry for the bump. Since @Fenneko and I discussed the 2016 Ghostbusters in another thread, I wanted to share what I think is one of the best reviews for it, and one I personally agree with. Here's what I'd tell somebody about it, it's not as bad as you'd expect, but not as good as you'd hope. At least for me that was the case. While people immediately resorted to bashing and arguing about the film before its release, I wanted to actually see it and form my own thoughts on it.
I agree the most with this IMDb review by the user annilator86. Here's some notable quotes from that review: "Along with these criticisms come with the really bad script that just acts like imitation crab in the food world; it's just an imitation." "Instead of treating both genders equally, Paul Feig displays men as idiots or assholes." "Leslie Jones is another problem; she portrays a stereotypical black woman with an attitude." "It's getting mixed to positive reviews, but the people liking this movie are the same people who jumped on-board the feminist "everyone who hates this film is a misogynist" train and they don't even mention anything beyond the parts they cherry-picked to like in the movie." "I thought I was watching a failing SNL parody rather than a good movie.
That's not what I did though. I wanted to see it and form my own opinion on it. Like I said in the other thread, the movie had ups and downs. When it worked, I think it worked, when it didn't, I think it fell flat. And speaking of the whole feminist thing, it was never said in the original Ghostbusters that it was explicitly a man's job only, so I was very open to an all female cast. Why people had to make a big deal out of that I'll never know. That's one part about the Nostalgia Critic's review that I think he did a fantastic job addressing, it did seem like there was no in between on that subject. You either liked it and betrayed the original, or you hated it because you hated women. I found the whole ordeal to be absolutely stupid.
1. It was more of the internet in general, from what I could infer. 2. But nobody asked for a all-female Ghostbusters though. We were actually anticipating Ghostbusters 3 (though you can consider the 2009 game as the actual Ghostbusters 3). 3. Yeah, I'm with you for this one. I don't get why you had to get bashed for having a different opinion (it started with the trailer of course, but it's stupid to bash someone's opinion on a trailer when nobody knows what the full movie would be like in reality).
1. Maybe, but I feel like he/she should've considered that there would be people that would want to judge the movie for themselves, and not follow what the internet is doing. Not everybody jumps onto the bandwagon. 2. Sometimes we don't ask for something, but sometimes we can get something great out of that. I mean, speaking of Aggretsuko, did anyone ask Sanrio for a down to Earth series about an oppressed anthropomorphic female office worker that vents her anger by singing death metal? I was honestly surprised by that, I would've never expected Sanrio to make something like Aggretsuko, since it's such a departure from Hello Kitty. And much like what the Nostalgia Critic said in his review, it is kinda Bill Murray's fault we never got a true Ghostbusters 3 movie, since he kept telling people like Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd no. But yeah, while I've never played it, the game is the closest thing we'll ever get to a Ghostbusters 3, much like how Back to the Future: The Game is the closest we'll ever get to a Back To The Future part IV. 3. That's at least something you and I can agree on. It's not like Paul Feig and the rest of the crew were going to erase the original Ghostbusters from existence, so it just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous, and to this day, I do think one of the worst things to come out of that was people attacking James Rolfe for not wanting to see the film. I had no problem with that.
1. Even with that, there's also the attacks on AVGN and a few others just because they didn't want to see the movie. There's a lot of factors of band-wagoners and non-band-wagoners. That sentence was basing off only the majority, not the minority (which makes sense as his post seems to be referring to the trailer controversy). 2. Yeah, but atleast with Aggretsuko, the company already had experience with the animation style and atleast some ideals like the death metal songs and the superiors are actually portrayed accurately. On the other hand, this movie was a complete waste of talent (especially with Chris Hemsworth and the cameos of the currently-alive original cast) and the guys behind the remake probably had no idea what made the original so good. Plus, Sony did make some pretty bad films before this one (especially with The Smurfs series). On that note, maybe Bill Murray just didn't like the idea of another sequel (considering how GB2 wasn't that successful). 3. Me either. Some people could've not even knew about the original, so you can't really blame those people for not knowing the original (everyone has different tastes, and they also might have seen movies you haven't seen, or the other way around).
1. That's who I was referring to when I mentioned James Rolfe. That's the AVGN's real name. 2. That's what seems to happen with a big company. They may or may not see what their fans see, so they only make guesses. And yeah, can't forget to mention that Sony is the same company that brought us, *blech* the Emoji Movie, or IMO AKA The LEGO Movie ripoff, since so much I've seen of it looks way way way too much like the LEGO Movie. I honestly don't understand why Bill Murray would even say no to Ghostbusters 3, considering he did Garfield 2, which what really makes that confusing is the fact that apparently he wasn't the biggest fan of being in the first one, since there was a scene in Zombieland dedicated to him regretting being in the first Garfield movie, and according to what I heard from the Nostalgia Critic's review of the first Garfield, the reason he even got involved with it in the first place is because he mistook the writer, Joel Cohen for Joel Coen of the Coen Brothers, the same guys that made Fargo, The Big Lebowski, and No Country for Old Men. I have it in my mind that if I ever got the chance to speak to Bill Murray, I would ask him about the whole thing with Ghostbusters 3 and Garfield 2, like what got him to do the latter, but not the former.
1. Yeah, I already know. 2. I can't really tell who's worse, Illumination or Sony. Sony seems to miss more than hitting when it comes to movies, and Illumination is basic cookie-cutter with their films. 3. But it seems that Bill Murray was disappointed how the sequel of Ghostbusters turned out. I guess he only did the Garfield sequel because the contract he signed must've meant he would play as Garfield for all the movies in the series.
Unintended irony of that sentence is overwhelming Reviewer criticizes people jumping on train, while doing same himself. That is so not how to present yourself above others, really worth a facepalm I would say But yeah, probably has good points overall, however I haven't seen that movie, nor I intend to as I'm not big fan of Ghostbusters, even Scooby Doo can become bit too exiting to me at times, but oh I do prefer Scooby Doo over the Ghostbusters, that makes it so that I don't probably need to attempt to present myself even as worthy of making simple review of any film or to have much discussion over them, I might like bit too simple things and not really get the complex aspects some films try to lay out with great effort. Problem with most modern ones I feel being they focus too much on emotional side of characters, representing those big feelings, while I would prefer stories that unfold new events, characters being necessary evil. Old series used to be one episode, one story, with some bigger storyline at background, while new ones are tiny bit of hugely long story in every episode, I guess not all, but I find them hard to get into. Another problem is quick shots of eyeball or if you lucky two eyeballs of an actor, who stares while holding expression, nothing happens for 10 seconds and that being 'drama'. So I stopped following pretty much any series, I have better things to do than watching paint drying to wall. Yet they broadcast now things like shopping queues that are apparently popular, certainly must be something wrong in me as majority seem to like such stuff.
