@greenflashlight Soooooooooooo... there's no need to talk about theories on why the movie was made. We know why. Dan Akroyd made a whole thing about WHY he wrote Ghostbusters and what it was about. He did it because his entire family is deep into the paranormal (seriously, look up his father and grandfather) and this was HIS way to join that grand family tradition and put down his own beliefs about the paranormal, while also getting to make a movie with his friends.
Fun fact! Ernie Hudson was not the intended fourth for the movie. Originally it was supposed to be Eddie Murphy, and the part was MUCH larger, and different. But then Murphy did Beverly Hills Cop and became a huge overnight success and they couldn't really afford him anymore, so they changed the role and when he appeared in the movie since he was no longer 'one of the friends' but some random dude off the street.
Second fun fact! They didn't know for sure that Bill Murray was going to show up until the first day of shooting... when he showed up. Like, from the time they had asked him if he wanted in and he said 'yeah, sure' there was zero contact between Akroyd/Ramis and Murray until the first day of shooting.
@alamias Sorry. I'll shut up.
@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
@alamias Sorry. I'll shut up.
No, by no means do you have to. You are welcome to your opinions and thoughts and discussion! I just don't agree and am having a hard time putting myself in your shoes to see your point of view. That's all I meant. No need for you to censor yourself at all!
Maybe it is because I was an impressionable 12-year-old when I saw the original and the cartoons were an afterthought to me (which I never really watched). I don't have your experience, and that is A-OK!
Just, for me, I can't make that leap in my head, the original (2 movies) and this one are so intertwined I can't see it as anything other than a sequel to the original.
If they were good at what they did, it wouldn’t be a comedy or satire.
I will admit that the new movie felt a little less comedic, but I think it was aimed at a different draw.
I actually have the same thoughts on the original Ghostbusters as @GreenFlashlight. I never saw Peter and Ray as credible scientists. In fact, I usually forget that they're supposed to be scientists, considering how they are portrayed. Only Egon comes across as an actual, competent scientist. Epic Rap Battles skewered them pretty good.
When were any of them supposed to be credible scientists? They were kicked out of the university for not being credible scientists, even in a field that itself was largely considered to be a joke.
Peter Venkman was set up to not be a credible scientist. Didn't you listen to A.D. Yaeger's monologue when they came back to the University from the library? Peter Venkman is a schmoozer and politico, he's exactly the guy that the rest of the professional community hates because he's a black eye on the profession!
Ray Stanz is maaaaaaaaaybe credible as a field scientist? Maybe? His methods are questionable and dangerous. He read paranormal books and took them at face value. Sometimes they were right, sometimes not so much. This is a man who spent the night in a haunted house and got a beej from a ghost. AND LET THE GHOST DO IT. He's all energy and enthusiasm.
Egon Spengler is... questionable as a credible scientist. Sure, he has come up with some amazing inventions and theories. He was also going to drill a hole into his own head. He collected spores, molds, and fungus. He slept with psychoactive pink sewer ooze.
The point is that they were right. They were booted out for all these crazy theories and wild ideas, that turned out to be absolutely true. Ray even expressed hesitation over going into the 'private sector' because they 'expect results' whereas the university did not. But it turned out that everything they'd theorized was true!
@too-old-for-this said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
The point is that they were right. They were booted out for all these crazy theories and wild ideas, that turned out to be absolutely true. Ray even expressed hesitation over going into the 'private sector' because they 'expect results' whereas the university did not. But it turned out that everything they'd theorized was true!
Yeeeeah, for some reason I still feel that the story is about a bunch of blue collar, Real American, anti-intellectualist, regular Joes sticking it to the man, and it's probably not a good message to be putting out there, if we're honest. I can't put my finger on why, though...
******
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
@ominous Oh there's SO many terrible messages one could take from those movies. But that would be intentionally reading far too much into a comedy about some science guys being sciencey and doing wacky science to save New York!
I wonder if this is new or if I just noticed.
There are a bunch of movies with 'Christmas' in their title. Hallmark-made or copycats, you know the type. All of them are trending up now, for obvious reasons.
What's interesting is that nearly without exception they are also very highly rated on IMDB. Several have solid 7s, almost all well above 6. Most of them with something like 50 reviews total on them.
There are just a few possibilities.
One is that the low number of reviews naturally manipulates the high star ratings.
The other is that only people who will like them actually watch them since they are... exactly what they say on the can. Christmas Castle? Well there's gonna be a fucking castle and someone is gonna be staying there. So they just don't get negative reviews since naysayers don't bother.
The third is that there are some kinda shenanigans goin' on to artificially inflate the ratings.
Or maybe it's a Christmas miracle that produces high quality flicks, I guess!
@arkandel said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
The third is that there are some kinda shenanigans goin' on to artificially inflate the ratings.
Given the whole idea of the War on Christmas, you will always have a few that rate it highly just for “daring” to say Christmas.
I don't know where this goes, but it's not the Good TV thread, that's for sure.
They're making a Mayfair Witches TV series. Anne Rice.
what the actual fuck.
@sunny I think producers are digging to see what audiences like these days.
Not everyone can pull a Disney or Amazon and pour big $$$ into huge productions. Are we still into vampires? 'Cause all they need is some fancy contact lenses and plastic fangs for that. Do sitcoms still work? Laugh tracks are cheap!
Apparently the other thing that's cheap is the rights to Anne Rice's name. 
The Mayfair witches are…I don’t even know how you could turn it into something you can show on television. I cannot imagine suburbia is prepared for this. Like. They’re worse, content wise, than her Sleeping Beauty books. The stories are pretty good! But.
@sunny said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
The Mayfair witches are…I don’t even know how you could turn it into something you can show on television. I cannot imagine suburbia is prepared for this. Like. They’re worse, content wise, than her Sleeping Beauty books. The stories are pretty good! But.
I imagine they'll 50 Shades of Gray it up until the housewives are injecting it into their veins.
@sunny said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
The Mayfair witches are…I don’t even know how you could turn it into something you can show on television. I cannot imagine suburbia is prepared for this. Like. They’re worse, content wise, than her Sleeping Beauty books. The stories are pretty good! But.
I remember reading at least the actual trilogy, but not the crossover stuff. I’m not sure I would characterize it this way? The VC books I remember being very racy and we got through those just fine. Lasher and Taltos and such were, iirc, relatively mild in comparison.
It is entirely possible I am somehow misremembering but I was a very horny teenager when reading them and I feel like I would remember this.
I am deeply disappointed by the idea that they are going to "make the subtext sexuality maintext" in the Interview with the Vampire series because that entirely eviscerates the point of Anne Rice vampires as sensual but not sexual creatures and directly contradicts the source material talking about how they basically can't fuck. I mean, by all means, make the queer relationship between Louis and Lestat more front and center, but there are asexual queer relationships amidst mortals too, you don't just have to make it about fucking and destroy the reference material in it. Not to mention how much more awkward and cringe it makes the subsequent pseudorelationship that Louis has with Claudia if her vampires suddenly are sexual and not just emotionally intimate. I just can't. And then for people to act like it's written up to be more for Anne Rice fans than general viewers... like not even. I'm a huge Anne Rice fan and I am pissed about the change, more so than the questionable other changes to time period and aging Claudia up further to 14 rather than down toward 5 or so as she was in the books. Come on man. I just. fumes When this comes out can someone else who is a big Anne Rice fan let me know how it goes because the journalists covering it are not giving me much hope for what interest I'm going to find there.
@Bellecourt said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
When this comes out can someone else who is a big Anne Rice fan let me know how it goes because the journalists covering it are not giving me much hope for what interest I'm going to find there.
Granted, it's been some time since I read the series, but I don't remember this actually being the case? Lestat spends pretty much the entire series banging it out with various people. Louis, Nicolas, Akasha. From what I remember of TotBT, it's not that they can't fuck. They do. It just isn't as pleasurable to them as drawing blood. But I distinctly remember Akasha having some ways to seduce our boy L, and both sexuality and sensuality are presented in big bold letters throughout the whole thing.
So I'm not sure how that's a significant deviation from the source material. We seem to be remembering it two very different ways.
I don't even necessarily see the bits about Claudia being problematic, as Claudia makes it pretty clear that Louis has never really looked at her as anything other than a child and it pisses her off because she's like a hundred years old and wants to get down.
So I guess I'm unclear on why this would be a dealbreaker for you? Is it because you don't see yourself represented in the story if these changes are made?
@Derp
Except Lestat explicitly says the dick don't work:
https://iwantmyiwtv.com/tag/priapus-at-the-gate/
"I studied my reflection … and the organ, the organ we don’t need, poised as if ready for what it would never again know how to do or want to do, marble, a Priapus at a gate” – Lestat, Queen of the Damned
So... My problem is that it literally conflicts with a point explicitly laid out in the books. I am pretty sure you are either remembering it wrong or sourcing it from a book after the first three in the series, or the Vampire Armand, or Pandora, all of which I have read and in none of which there are vampires fucking. Its the same reason I am refusing to watch Rings of Power over the dwarven chicks without beards part. Either be true to the source material in places where it is explicitly establishing rules for how the setting works or own up to it as fanfic.
But there's more to that quote, right? It's from pp. 325-326 from QotD, according to my search. And in that, Lestat points out that the entire sexual or sensual experience is still extremely pleasurable.
I mean, sure, banging is pointless, but the quote itself states that the organ was "poised as if ready for what it would never again know how to do or want to do[.]" My take is that Lestat is aware that his penis won't impregnate someone again, but he's still staring at the fact that it was "poised" and ready to go. This seems supported by the reference to Priapus, a Greek / Turkish god of fertility.
That said, I'm with you about being hesitant.
@Bellecourt said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
So... My problem is that it literally conflicts with a point explicitly laid out in the books. I am pretty sure you are either remembering it wrong or sourcing it from a book after the first three in the series, or the Vampire Armand, or Pandora, all of which I have read and in none of which there are vampires fucking.
Well, I suppose I beg to differ on this. I was referencing book 4 of the Vampire Chronicles, but I know for a solid fact that there is vampire sex in Pandora.
He covered me and kissed my cheek. “Drink from me,” he said, “drink until the pain goes away. It’s only the body dying, drink Pandora, you are immortal.“
“Fill me, take me,” I said. I reached down between his legs.
“It doesn’t matter now.”
But it was hard, this organ I sought, the organ forever lost to the god Osiris. I guided it, hard and cold as it was, into my body. Then I drank and drank, and when I felt his teeth again on my neck, when he began to draw from me the new mixture that filled my veins, it was sweet suckling, and I knew him and loved him and knew all his secrets in one flash which meant nothing. He was right. The lower organs meant nothing. He fed on me. I fed on him. This was our marriage.
They don't think sex is super awesome compared to drinking blood but they absolutely can and do have sex. Marius and Armand have sex with a woman, Louis compares sex to drinking blood in interview and finds it lacking, I'm sure there are a handful of others that I'm just forgetting.
I think you're being overly purist about a thing that isn't as pure as you're remembering it to be.
The Mayfair witches are…I don’t even know how you could turn it into something you can show on television. I cannot imagine suburbia is prepared for this. Like. They’re worse, content wise, than her Sleeping Beauty books. The stories are pretty good! But.
