MB.

7 hours ago, alfierose said:

Compared to 5 or 6 years back when I first joined I think the site is actually a bit more balanced now. Steven and Izzy were virtually ignored and Slash's name was dragged through the mud a lot.

Lol, were you really here 5 or 6 years ago? Axl was so much more hated back than, since we were mostly old gnr fans on here and maybe only a few, but loud Axlites. Steven and Izzy have never have been ignored and Slash was loved more than he is now actually. See way more critism towards him nowadays. That it is more balanced is true, but mostly cause the love/hate towards the members is more balanced.

Blade Runner has Rutger Hauer in it. He makes that movie worth while, you should see it Len.

It’s not a typical sci fi movie. Hauer is brilliant in it.

22 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Broadly speaking though, there are a million ways in which I'm sure it failed and could have been better and none of my post was saying that it struck anything like a valuable blow for 'the feminist cause', I honestly don't think its substantial enough to do so, nor is any one movie, its really not as simple a task, least of all to be performed by a remake of Ghostbusters, nor have i seen it or intend to see it or think that there is much likelihood in it being anything other than a piece of shit, I just think the reactions and furore around it are kind of illuminating.  

No Len, this movie was meant as a blockbuster. Which means a lot of money was invested in it. It’s not very often a totally female lead get that much money for a movie. So if they do get it, make it right and not a piece of shit. Why a remake of Ghostbusters in the first place, even with a male cast it probably would have failed. The risk was already too high. They wanted to prove a point and it backfired, something that was about to happen. Making it polarising and losing a battle. It pisses me off. I don’t want excisting and loved concepts to be changed (Star Wars, Ghostbusters or whatever), so the men in Hollywood can feel better and say: See we did think of the women. I want them to make orginal female lead blockbusters, scripts more often written by women, directed by women.

But even so, nothing wrong with an all male lead, all gay lead, all black lead, all Asian lead or whatever as well. Not every movie has to be adjusted. 

oh about Jackie Brown, would have loved it as well, when she was white. The role was written for a female and not for a man, that’s what it is about, not the color of her skin. However Pam Grier certainly took that movie to another level.

The discussion started about the female hero Star Wars actually. 

Anyway, I hate remakes and reboots, they are mostly utter shit. And a remake while changing all gender roles is even more shit. The problem is, Hollywood wanted to prove females could take over the orginal male roles and be just as succesfull, but in this case it was about to fail.  Not cause it had all females, but it had no good script to begin with. So an all female remake big production failed and it only proved the critics right and now they can keep on saying: See women are not funny, see they can’t lead movies etc. Nice one, it polarises even more. You think investors are eager to invest lots of money in big production movies around a female cast now?  So what good did it do us? They could have known as well. Nobody can top the first cast, it was perfect as it was. To me it proves only, Hollywood is too scared to build a fresh and exciting, expensive new movie around a female cast. I, as a woman, have to feel great now, cause Ghostbusters can be female as well. I actually feel patronised, would they make a female lead movie, all male all of the sudden as well? Like Jackie Brown will be remaked and it’s now Jack Brown? Just ugh. This is like a bone is thrown to me ‘here, you got your big Hollywood production, now be glad’. Wouldn’t it been better to have this pretty solid cast and make a strong orginal fun movie with the same amount of money? But Hollywood is currently too scared to try anything new it and they tried to play it safe. It was a totally shit movie, so thanks but no thanks. Can I also point out, that the movie had all male directors, why was that. Again to play it as safe as possible in their eyes. Ocean’s 8 will be a total fail as well, pretty sure of it. That will the the second female Blockbuster fail and it will be very hard to even get investors for another female big production.  I love movies like Resident Evil, Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, but in current days how much money will the get to even make it, if they are making shit movies like Ghostbusters which pretty much failed and investors will get too scared to invest.

Yes women are not casted or leading enough in Hollywood, but this is not way. Hollywood, even with these movies is, still totally male dominated. A good idea would be to get more female writers and directors and write orginal scripts, take a risk. The whole rebooting/remaking of old movies has to stop anyway, be a bit more orginal.

55 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 people act like Ghostbusters was some kinda fuckin' weighty substantial movie 

For many people my age it actually was

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I guess its all about how you go about it, isn't it?  Some of the great works of art in theatre and film have had social agendas.  Does everything have to be pure fuckin' cinema in the Hitchcockian sense?  Do The Right Thing has a social agenda, American History X has a social agenda, Moliere had a social agenda frequently.  If you're looking for tact in mainstream cinema well thats sort of like going to the butchers looking to get your boots mended. 

Lol, are you comparing those movies and the work of Moliere to a Ghostbuster movie? 

Nothing wrong with a scripted social agenda, nobody is denying that. The best movies came out of that. There is something wrong with adding stupid roles or changing good scripts for the sake of it. It’s like doing a remake of Trainspotting, cause women can be junkies too or Lock Stock, cause ofcourse women can be criminals as well. Cut it out already. Use a new fresh script for that. Don’t change something already good for that. That’s the whole discussion. 

12 hours ago, downzy said:

Why should women or minorities be excluded from big tent franchises because we don't want to step on any toes?  Who's toes?  Overly sensitive men who feel like Star Wars is theirs?  

I have never said women or minorities should be excluded from franchises, where did you get that from? 

People don’t like big changes and certainly not Star Wars fans, which come in every form and gender btw! Star Wars fans are indeed overly sensitive, extremely senstive actually. They do love everything kind of the same as it has always been. I actually had no problem with the new Star Wars personally, it was most certainly not the best either though. But I do understand the discussion about it. Look I like the Resident evil’s as well (yes, my taste is questionable, I know), now if they would have killed her off halfway and replaced her with a guy (or even with another women, but definately a guy), it would have extremely pissed me off. Btw this was a good example of a pretty big female movie franchise. See I don’t like big changes either. Same goes for Star Wars fans, I assume. Luke is their hero, like Alice is mine and changing that would suck. 

Oh and the last years all- male lead movies are criticized btw, you did miss the discussions.  Not that that’s a bad thing, but I personally don’t have a problem with all male, all female, all black or all gay leads in movies. All are perfectly fine to me. You really did miss the Expendables discussion after the first. See The Expendables added a female lead after all the critics on the first and I personally would love Jovovich added, they should do that if a woman has to be in it. But if they never had added a female, I wouldn’t had a problem with it as well, it didn’t make me feel offended. I happen to like Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Norris, Chan etc. and I certainly love Statham. All of them in one (well three) movies, was great. I don’t see the problem in an all-male movie, with some guns and explosions. I didn’t feel the need a woman should be added, to prove a female can shoot a gun and fight as well. Ofcourse we can, but not necessarly in this movie, there are other movies made were it is proven. However they did add a female though, it’s fine they did, but it also didn’t add that much. Again, you missed the discussion. So I disagree with your statement that all male movies are considered appealing, that’s not the case anymore. It isn’t a bad thing, but people don’t have to criticize everything.

 You made some valid points in this whole discussion and it’s not that I don’t agree with some stuff you said about movies. I just don’t agree with everything. And yeah, the answer is simple people don’t like changes in a good loved concept with established genderroles, to me there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. It’s a bit sentiment and in this current US political climat it feels often forced to many people, it polarizes at times instead of bringing people together. I personally don’t need that, I don’t live there. To me both sides in the US are overly sensitive atm and people are exxareting on both sides.

I truly love the The Expendables and well there is a female lead in 2 and 3.  No, I do not mind the almost male cast, however it isn’t a remake of a classic either. I also didn’t mind Charlie Angels being all female. I can say something else, yes people in the US actually did complain about the expendables right away!!! That’s why a woman was added in the other ones. Haven’t seen anybody complaining about for instance Charlie Angels though. 

Seems the US is so sensitive nowadays and on both sides btw. Here in Europe we have a hard time, understanding it.

Oh and btw I am a total feminist. I just prefer the message is brought in a good way, without stepping on toes. You can’t mess with Ghostbusters, that movie is a classic. For people my age, it was part of our childhood and people are fuzzy about it, and that is just natural.  Hollywood has made in the past great female leads movies, without stepping on toes. Why was a female ghostbusters needed? It felt like it was a bit provocative to a certain group of people and only done cause of your current climate. Now that is great if the script would have made everybody shut up. If you do make it, be sure it would have silenced the critics, instead it did the opposite. Making that group feel right and that’s a shame. They shouldn’t have even touched it in the first place.

I just have a different opinion how things should be brought. In this current US climate you have to do it right and not make it seems ‘forced’. Just take a Kill Bill or Jackie Brown, Resident evil or more recently the Zookeepers wife or even Wonder woman, those are way better female leads, without stepping on toes. It doesn’t work by making the legendary Ghostbusters female with a script inferior to the orginal. 

Now this weekend I am going with my daughter to Jane a documentary about Jane Goodall. It will teach my daughter, but also everybody who has seen it a whole lot more how to be a strong and independent woman.

51 minutes ago, Padme said:

But that's my point. Why drugs and violence in L.A. black communites instead of drugs and violence in white communities areas or just everywhere in America?  I'm all for movies about dugs and violence but not one sided

Lol, this thread is exactly about that, cause why not one sided? Why couldn’t a movie been made about drugs and violence in a black community. There are also movies about drugs and violence in white communities, but this one is not. So you always have make movies with all sides in it, to not upset anybody? 

J Dog is right, that movie was indeed pretty important. People had to learn about what was going on, how poor those area’s where, how much violance there was. Cause those communities were left on their own in those days. It made people aware and that was needed as well. It was actually a very political movie.

7 hours ago, Dazey said:

Sorry MB. I've read enough of your posts on here over the years to know that you don't have a racist bone in your body. I just thought your choice of words could've been better.

Lol, I know, I really didn’t thought it through. 

You know it’s also that Hollywood makes useless movies to please everybody the last couple of years or so it seems. Like they are afraid to just make a great movie even when it means it needs a white male lead or hardly diversity. So they can please most people and even most ages, so they have as many paying customers as possible and don’t get called racist or anti feminist or whatever. But it are often not the best movies.

In the past good movies were made by Hollywood. Strong female leads as well, strong black man/female leads/roles etc. To name a few out of my head, Sophie’s choice, Silance of the lambs, Shawshank redemption, The Green Mile, a Soldier’s story, Malcolm X, Jackie Brown, Glory, Amistad etc. for instance, but I can name so many more. American History X as a great movie to protest against the racism in the US. It’s not like there were never made any. Oh and Will Smith is probably the most popular actor atm. The only group who does deserve better are gays, Philidelphia, Brokeback Mountain, Moonlight (not a Hollywood production) are one of the few movies where gays are portrayed in a non feminine way. ( yeah Will and Grace and specially Ellen where important, I can only applaud that). Anyway hardly good films made by Hollywood nowadays. They are making lots of crap, all ages diversity movies just for the sake of it, so it seems. Think that is what bothers me most. For actually great movies you have to go to independent or European movies/series now. Go watch the Zookeepers wife, talking about strong female leads btw. Moonlight, Amour (about dementia). One of the best of the last years is the Intouchables, strong black lead, A ciambra (so not political correct, but totally based on truth). Best series are Italian for sure, Gomorra, Romanzo Criminale for instance. All not afraid to adress difficult subjects, without being a crap movie like the new Ghostbusters and without being patronising. But this is my personal opinion. 

I don’t care about your politics. Ofcourse I am liberal, I am even more liberal than the US Liberals. I am European and a left winged one, which means in US eyes, I am a socialist. I don’t care, just make good series and movies again. Stop pleasing as many people and ages as possible with crap. Keep it real, stick to the story, make better ones. Don’t care what color, gender or sexual orientation the leads are, but don’t add people with useless roles to please everybody and to lecture us. Hollywood constantly seems to want to teach mostly white males,  how normal it is to be gay, to be black, to be a strong female, like people are kids to be taught, ofcourse it is normal. Stop lecturing that with silly movies (like the new Ghostbusters ) or silly changes in stories/persons, so people will not get offended or defensive. This is just not the way and misses it’s purpose totally. Just make better movies.

41 minutes ago, Dazey said:

So blacks are okay as long as they're playing the help? 

Lol, I didn’t even think anything bad about it. Guess that would have made people even more upset if you put it that way. 

Well if you go to historical accurancy the servents would have been (kids) slaves cause that was in fashion and a status symbol in those days, that would probably be a total no go in a kids movie. Nevermind than. Keep it like it is, I said nothing.

There is no harm and I agree with most what you just said. There is no harm at all, but the question is at times why doing it. There just were no black villagers in 1700th France. No where in the orginal story by Leprince de Beaumont (a woman btw) there are black people mentioned. So for the movie, the servants fine, that could have been the case, but the villagers no. So if you have already minority roles (servants), there just isn’t a need for black villagers. Ofcourse there is no harm, but it is just not needed as well. 

Also I am not talking about those series and movies you mentioned at all. We are talking about creating roles which don’t bring anything extra to a movie or serie for the only reason to put a minority in it. Or like in Star Wars making it way too obvious, what the meaning behind it is. Or like you said an hystorical character is suddenly black. That comes across as patronising. There is no harm in general, but it does harm the movie at times, making it patronising.

5 hours ago, downzy said:

  I think it's hard to argue that America wouldn't be as far as long as it currently stands if it weren't for people like Ellen DeGenerous and shows like Modern Family.    

I have no idea if the US would still be that behind when it comes to gays, maybe you are right. The thing is, lots of shows or movies are also broadcasted here. In my country our most famous tv show hosts were and are gay, black or female. For instance we had openly gay tv show hosts since the 60s. So it’s such a non issue. We don’t understand the fuzz made.  I understand in some countries it could be a good thing, but when I personally see those parts added and often not good or totally not needed, it annoys me, I don’t need the lecture. I also think, way less Americans need the lecture as Hollywood thinks. It really comes across patronising.

Hollywood has become incredible patronising. It annoys me greatly. Movies and series have become sesamestreet for adults. Maybe it’s cause off the country where I come from and it’s less needed here or maybe it’s also less needed in the US than Hollywood seems to think. I think it annoys a lot of people and cause of that, it misses it’s purpose entirely. Sometimes the roles are so obviously added for diversity reasons it just looks stupid. Just keep it real and within the context. I just don’t want or need to be lectured by Hollywood in every movie or tvshow I watch, it’s annoying and patronising. 

Yeah, I agree. I also think it’s a trust issue. Maybe something happened we don’t know about. I really think it’s more than just his back. I also think, it’s not just Axl making this decision.

I would have loved Steven on this tour, even for just a couple of songs, but actually I also understand, why they didn’t. Bringing along this guy, also means a lot of responsibility. He often seems like a child needed to take care off. It sucks, but bringing along a guy like Steven is probably like bringing an 8 year old on tour.

Sad news, eventhough I never liked his music. He had a lot of kids, feel so sorry for them.

Yeah, Justin Bieber, One Direction, 5th Harmony all the bands that have a huge teenager fanbase are the most sensitive by far. Just check out youtube or something and see for yourself. 

Janis Joplin

Hendrix

Prince

Michael Jackson

Elvis

I liked hearing Slash saving most those songs. I never really got into CD, not enough feel into the songs or something. Slash as no other can bring a song to life and imo he does it with the CD songs. Except for Better, they shouldn't play it at all imo. I don't like how Slash plays that and Axl can't sing it well enough anymore. I loved hearing Sorry, Slash totally saved it and it was pretty good.

40 minutes ago, Zurimor said:

Just like us Germans! Okay, we think of caravans, too, and make jokes about it. 

 

 

You don't even want to know the jokes we make about Germans

Edit: Lol, Evan was faster than me

It was disapointing anyway. I hate they used a windmill, so boring. Well thank god it were not wooden shoes, it could have been even worse.

There was a litho @Nikki_Sixx. Maybe the girl didn't understand it was a litho and not a poster.

edit: oh brownstone was faster in answering.

6 minutes ago, GNRmello77 said:

I think I have to go with Estranged as well, man I love that song and to hear Slash playing it was incredible! Coma did it for me It is such a bad ass song and I love every single part of it, I was very excited tehy did Out ta get me and Michelle such upbeat rock songs love it!! and then of course Jungle Always fun! Civil war was ,really good to and It was only the 2nd time ever I heard it live but it remains a masterpiece, and the vodoo child outro right after so much better than YouTube lol

I personally went nuts with Coma, that song is special to me, so hearing it played live almost brought tears to me eyes. I can be so pathetic at times. I also loved hearing I used to love her, such a fun song.

Like I said, AC/DC was huge in my country, seriously huge. They could sell out a goffertpark twice with Brian still in, in the past probably. Tickets for AC/DC were always hard to get, it sold out in an instant. So most of the people loved to see Angus. You can see it in the vids as well, the crowd was excited. He is very loved over here, so nobody was complaining. I am an AC/DC fan and truly was hoping for it. It seemed he was staying in his house in Aalten, I was really hoping for him to show up and he did, yay. So most of the people there loved it and that's all that matters in the end. 

What a great show it was, can't stop talking about it.