Ghostbusters reboot (film) - Female cast

[Neil]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Ghostbusters-3-Led-By-People-67609.html


...director Paul Feig has accepted the challenge of updating the Ghostbusters for a new generation, and he’s bringing The Heat screenwriter Katie Dippold along for the ride. Feig took the news one step further on Twitter, proclaiming that the new team indeed will be female-led, as many had speculated when his name was attached to the project.

[MinionZombie]

Hmmm ... frankly "The Heat" was only alright, nowhere near Ghostbusters in terms of comedy or quality ... so that doesn't fill me with hope.

As for an 'all female Ghostbusters' ... ... I don't know. Ghostbusters is very much those four guys with Ivan Reitman directing. I mean who knows, it could turn out to be an excellent film ... but no connection to the established universe and characters and, it seems, creators of Ghostbusters at all? Is this just going to be pretty much a remake? I don't envy Feig et al whatsoever - Ghostbusters is so steadfastly identified with those four guys and it worked brilliantly - coming up with a new film in the franchise, let alone one that's worthy of the name, is going to be insanely hard.

I'm not opposed to the idea of an all female cast - or an all female Ghostbusters - I thought Bridesmaids was superb, and this could turn out to be wonderful ... ... but I do worry that in this instance it could easily come off as just a gimmick. It could come off as a remake that's desperate to rinse some more cash out of the name by any means. Colour me concerned until more is known... :rockbrow:

[Rottedfreak]

Women aren't funny. PERIOD!

Just how I feel when I watch a comedy with women characters.

[MoonSylver]

http://www.fittoprintstore.com/images/he%20man%20bordered%20ebay.jpg

Preach on Brother Alfalfa, testify Brother Buckwheat.

Just great. Another remake/reboot that I can't wait to not see.

http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/dts.gif

[MinionZombie]

Women aren't funny. PERIOD!

Just how I feel when I watch a comedy with women characters.

I disagree.

It depends on the product - TV show, movie, comedy special - good characters, good performances, good jokes ... it doesn't matter if they're men or women. What matters, and particularly in this case, is making something that'll be worthy of the iconic stature and well-deserved reputation of the beloved original (even though GB2 apes the first movie a lot, it's aping top tier material with the original creators) ... I'd love that to happen, but I fear disappointment could be the more likely outcome of all this.

This is certainly going to be a perilous tightrope walk for all involved! :eek:

[MoonSylver]

I disagree.

It depends on the product - TV show, movie, comedy special - good characters, good performances, good jokes ... it doesn't matter if they're men or women. What matters, and particularly in this case, is making something that'll be worthy of the iconic stature and well-deserved reputation of the beloved original (even though GB2 apes the first movie a lot, it's aping top tier material with the original creators) ... I'd love that to happen, but I fear disappointment could be the more likely outcome of all this.

This is certainly going to be a perilous tightrope walk for all involved! :eek:

To step out of sexist mode for a minute, in all seriousness I had never really given the subject serious consideration until I read RF's post & then started to think about it trying to refute his claim.

TBH, all my favorite stand-up's have been guys, all my favorite comedies have been written by, & are starring guys, & I couldn't come up with any female comedians or comedies that have ever made me laugh as hard as the males.

Not that there haven't been gals that have made me laugh per se, but nope, nowhere near as much as guys.

In any case, one of the thing that made GB work IMO was that kind of "guys club" & the relationship they had with each other. I just can't see that with a bunch dames! So there. :|

[Trancelikestate]

This is all just more hype for what will be the real movie if and when it does happen. Consider the facts. One of the biggest profits of the franchise is the merchandise. In the 80's the all male cast and it's toys and other merchandise mostly appealed to boys. Not always, but mostly. Given an all female cast, not many boys are gonna want toys from "a girls movie". Now a cast of both sexes will be much more marketable. It's a no brainer. But the hype is working well. Almost too good.

[Neil]

Complete reboot with no connection to original films - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/69078

[MinionZombie]

To be fair, most comedians are guys, the vast majority are, so you're far less likely to happen upon a female comedian.

Ultimately it still comes down to the quality of the gags. There's plenty of male comics who are god-awful, but that's also bound to happen, particularly with there being so many. Perhaps it's generally a more male pursuit anyway - the idea of telling jokes, ripping on people and ideas, being silly for a career etc - perhaps women aren't so interested in living that lifestyle themselves. In terms of appeal it comes down to the material the comedian is performing - to each their own etc - I think Sarah Millican is hilarious and likewise with Peter Kay, but there's male and female comics that I also find distinctly unfunny. It's personal taste in the end.

Anyway - no connection to the original movies? Ugh, so it's a remake then, or a "reboot" or whatever they want to call it. I think that could be a mistake and feels a little bit like a slap in the face to the franchise which is so intensely identified with those four guys. Yes, it makes some sense for a clean break - but such a move also has plenty of peril on its side. Like they said on AICN, a GB flick with only half the cast wouldn't have worked ... but just ignoring it entirely? It would have been nice if they'd been able to establish that 'franchise' idea that Ackroyd was going for originally and they could have had him and Hudson helping out like mentors in setting up a new GB franchise in a different city with them as managers of the company.

I'd love for this to be an excellent film that's really fun ... Bridesmaids was brilliant, but The Heat was pretty much forgettable (although I enjoyed Bullock and McCarthy's on-screen chemistry, even though they were let down by a lack of good jokes).

The approach of 'this time it'll be all women' seems a bit binary ... swapping one with the other ... why not mixed? Wouldn't that be more suitable for achieving equality? Flipping from one (common) extreme to the other (far less common) extreme kind of feels like a step behind where we need to be stepping, if that makes sense? Perhaps we're just not quite at that point yet ... hmmm.

Now, that said, there's always going to be call for films with all/mostly male casts and films with all/mostly female casts - it's whatever suits the project. If they can make an entirely female cast work for Ghostbusters then fine by me - but it's going to be a hell of a challenge creating a story that's up-to-snuff with jokes that are likewise. Whether the cast is all male or all female or a mix - in this film or any film - doesn't matter to me. Ultimately it's about the quality of the characters, the story, the comedy/horror/action/whatever ... but as I've said earlier, I don't envy Feig or anyone else involved in this project one bit.

Naturally I'm concerned with how this is going to turn out for many, many reasons. Ghostbusters was and is my Star Wars ... I just hope we don't end up with another Episode One situation (shit characters, shit story, bizarre tone that's totally askew to what is expected of the material, etc)! It'd be great if it was more Episode Seven (presuming that's going to turn out good, but the indicators are there) ... we'll have to see, I guess.

[shootemindehead]

They should just let Ghostbusters die in peace.

A female cast would be rubbish.

[bassman]

What do you mean biblical?

Old Testament, real wrath of god type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forties years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, an all female ghostbusters reboot. Mass hysteria!

:dead:

F*ck this and f*ck Feig if it happens.

[blind2d]

I know it will be awful, but I still want to see it. Love a woman in uniform.

[MoonSylver]

Complete reboot with no connection to original films - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/69078

http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEzLzA2LzEyLzY2L0phY2tOaWNob2xzLjIxZTBhLmdpZg pwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/a7087029/e2b/Jack-Nicholson.gif


What do you mean biblical?

Old Testament, real wrath of god type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forties years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, an all female ghostbusters reboot. Mass hysteria!

:dead:

F*ck this and f*ck Feig if it happens.

:thumbsup:


I know it will be awful, but I still want to see it. Love a woman in uniform.

http://images.halloweencostumes.com/products/9807/1-1/womens-sexy-ghostbuster-costume.jpg

Now if THIS is what they have in mind for an all female cast, it could work...:lol:

Oh, & Bass, if you say one word about where they got the details wrong on the uniform, I'm gonna punch you. :D

With all these comments, I'm starting to agree with Trancelike's theory....

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/3000971-troll_busters_by_neko_no_nyaan-d54dcmw.jpg

[Trancelikestate]

He wasn't alone either. He had close to a million followers by the time his vodka released. They conducted bizarre rumors on FB intending to bring about the third Ghostbusters film and now it looks like IT MAY ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

Seriously though, it totally won't. Not this anyway. My "theory" makes total sense. Hype up the movie with with fanboys ultimate nightmare before actually committing to the real project or watch the whole thing go red giant like a dying star and then just explode. One thing to keep in mind as Ghostbusters fans is not to take anything too seriously. I see fans guilty of that all the time. (Not referring to anyone here) We're Ghostbusters. We have a sense of humor. :p

Did someone say Phantom Menace?!?!

Q4TX6x2WLgk

They were rubbish!

[MinionZombie]

Ironically enough when I came to watch that clip of Spaced it said it wasn't available in my country - excuse me, YouTube, but Spaced is a British show in the first place! :p

I'd seen it plenty of times on DVD anyway, so nevermind ... but yeah ... the lifelong Ghostbusters fan in me is dreading a Phantom Menace-like situation. Fingers crossed, eh?!

[Trancelikestate]

What's being discussed makes the Phantom Menace look like the Shawshank Redemption.

EDIT: Trailer leaked already!!

edCDItBYBcE


Seriously though, it doesn't even sound slightly realistic anymore. Poor Harold.

[Legion2213]

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120922211050/marriedwithchildren/images/2/2a/Wikia_MWC_-_NO_MA'AM_(episode).png

[MoonSylver]

:lol:

The Anti-Estrogen Brigade has struck again! :lol:

[bassman]

I'm not opposed to female ghostbusters at all, but an ALL female team? Too gimmick-y. And a TOTAL reboot? To hell with that. Even with the tragic passing of Ramis and Murray's reluctance to participate in another entry, they could still do the "passing of the torch" film that they've talked about for years. Even if Stantz(Aykroyd) and Zeddemore(Hudson) are the only two that make appearances. It could still be the origin story that Feig seems set on.

But as others have said, hopefully the whole thing will know what it's like to be roasted in the depths of a sloar....

[AcesandEights]

I thought this (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2014/10/14/gillian-anderson-demands-a-role-in-paul-feigs-ghostbusters-reboot/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) was interesting.

Gillian Anderson showing interest to participate, sounds like fun if they move away from the reboot aspect. I was sure you benighted souls would be interested, if only for the opportunity to tear down a female actress. :D

[MoonSylver]

I thought this (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2014/10/14/gillian-anderson-demands-a-role-in-paul-feigs-ghostbusters-reboot/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) was interesting.

Gillian Anderson showing interest to participate, sounds like fun if they move away from the reboot aspect. I was sure you benighted souls would be interested, if only for the opportunity to tear down a female actress. :D

I would take Gillian Anderson in anything. Especially my bed. :D

[Trancelikestate]

There's so many rumors abound it makes my head spin. I might go so far as to say this is the most anticipated, rumor centered film in history.

One more thing, GB3 already exists. It's called the video game.

[EvilNed]

I'm not opposed to female ghostbusters at all, but an ALL female team? Too gimmick-y. And a TOTAL reboot? To hell with that.

Why must an all-male lead be Ok but an all-female lead be gimmicky? I have serious problems with that statement.
Not until this film, and more like it, get released will people stop looking at films with all female lead casts as "gimmicky". That's insulting, I think.

[AcesandEights]

Why must an all-male lead be Ok but an all-female lead be gimmicky?
Good point, Ned. I'm sure people will come up with all sorts of reasons, but I wager they'll ring pretty hollow.

[MoonSylver]

Sorry, but when you make switch like that & go out of your way to announce it, that reeks of "gimmick". Stunt casting for PR purposes is a long standing practice. They could have said "we're going to make them all kids, & add a funny talking dog!" while they were at it. :|

[EvilNed]

You only think that because the norm is all male leads. Unfortunately, we live in a world where this kind of news would be reported as gimmicky wether intended or not.

Half of the population is female. Take a step back and look at it from the outside - This is NOT anymore gimmicky than an all male lead, and if you think so then you're part of the problem.

[MoonSylver]

You only think that because the norm is all male leads. Unfortunately, we live in a world where this kind of news would be reported as gimmicky wether intended or not.

Half of the population is female. Take a step back and look at it from the outside - This is NOT anymore gimmicky than an all male lead, and if you think so then you're part of the problem.

:lol: You crack me up.

I suppose if someone were just announced as the writer or director of a rebbot of, say, "Sister Act" or "Fried Green Tomatoes" & said "we're going to do it with an all MALE cast", that wouldn't strike you ask being any more gimicky than this? :rockbrow:

If they'd sat down, come up with a list of actors & actresses they wanted to work with, eliminated down to 4 through auditions, or casting, or checking who was available, etc, & ended up at 4 females I wouldn't think it was a gimick. To change things & "shake it up" just for the purposes of doing it? On an established project known for its central characters? And make sure to announce it? Sounds like typical Hollywood stunt casting to me. And as noted earlier, the whole thing could be one big stunt anyway, just to create more hype.

And if you think I'm part of the problem? I really don't care. :nana::moon:

[bassman]

One more thing, GB3 already exists. It's called the video game.

Right on! That's my take on it. The original crew, tied to the original films, and a damn good story. Of course not to forget, funny to boot.


Why must an all-male lead be Ok but an all-female lead be gimmicky? I have serious problems with that statement.
Not until this film, and more like it, get released will people stop looking at films with all female lead casts as "gimmicky". That's insulting, I think.

That statement was insulting? So now you're going to try to play the sexist card? :rolleyes:

As I clearly stated in that post, I'm not opposed to female ghostbusters at all. In fact, I welcome it. But yes, to take away the original story, take away the remaining cast and crew, and then say "ah shit....we know this is doomed to fail, but we need to catch their attention! We need headlines to test the waters. I know..let's make a point of saying it will be all women!!" that DOES come across as a gimmick. I don't care if it's women, panda bears, or the Keebler Elves....it would still be a gimmick being used only because they can't get the cooperation of Murray and know that it's destined to fail.

It has nothing to do with the sex of the cast they plan on putting together, but more about how they've made a point to address it on a large platform this early in the game. THAT is a gimmick to get attention. I'm not sexist at all. Hell, when it comes to women in film, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of my all-time favorite flicks and it's told from the perspective of a woman...

[EvilNed]

"i'm not racist - but..."

Sorry, we're all sexist. I'm just pointing out that you thought an all female cast was gimmicky. Yeah, that is insulting, but rather than go "Hmm I guess you're right" you're trying to rationalize that statement.

People are fed up with feminism because the all-male norm permeates every facet of our society. It sucks, but its the truth. Whenever anyone ever speaks of sexism, try this... Replace the word with racism. Not as comfortable now, right? But the wordt part is, Sexism is socially acceptible. Racism isn't. So don't try to judge a film on the sex of it's cast, because you wouldn't judge it by the color of the actors' skin.

[MinionZombie]

The most important thing is good characters (with a good script!) regardless of their gender. I think a reason why this "all female Ghostbusters!" thing can seem somewhat of a "gimmick" is because of the amount of noise it's created in the media - whether intended or not by Feig, Sony et al - in a sort of "look at me, look at me!" manner. Perhaps the fluster also shows up, to a degree, in wider society how an all female line up can still boil some blood around the world (silly, really).

I think it's also partly down to Ghostbusters - as a franchise, a property, a beloved cultural landmark - being so keenly identified with those four specific guys. They're the creators of the franchise which essentially started and stopped with them for the last 30 years. You'd have had total nerd rage if they'd said they were keeping the four main characters - Peter, Ray, Egon, Winston - but were re-casting them with new actors (perhaps some hunky 90210 beefcake types).

For some people out there - in the world in general - I'm certain that the gender of the proposed four new 'busters (we know nothing else of their characters, or final cast count, or if it actually will be all-female) is their specific beef. For others it'll be part of their beef, but I'm also certain that for some people the issue is really about it not being those four guys (not that it'd even be physically possible these days, sadly).

There's various shades to this issue.

Flipping from all male to all female feels binary. If anything it feels like a step behind where we actually need to be - which is equality - why not half male and half female with their relationship to each other defined by their work place and their field of work, and not by their jiggly bits?

[MoonSylver]

It has nothing to do with the sex of the cast they plan on putting together, but more about how they've made a point to address it on a large platform this early in the game. THAT is a gimmick to get attention.

Yup.


"i'm not racist - but..."

Sorry, we're all sexist. I'm just pointing out that you thought an all female cast was gimmicky. Yeah, that is insulting, but rather than go "Hmm I guess you're right" you're trying to rationalize that statement.

People are fed up with feminism because the all-male norm permeates every facet of our society. It sucks, but its the truth. Whenever anyone ever speaks of sexism, try this... Replace the word with racism. Not as comfortable now, right? But the wordt part is, Sexism is socially acceptible. Racism isn't. So don't try to judge a film on the sex of it's cast, because you wouldn't judge it by the color of the actors' skin.

So far you seem to be the only one insulted, because you're looking to be, as usual. You're taking insult where none is being offered, because you choose to read what you want into posts, as usual. Maybe no one is agreeing because they DON'T think you're right.

Note how you conveniently choose to blithely ignore the points raised.

More morally superior & reactionary posts from Ned. What a surprise. :rolleyes:


The most important thing is good characters (with a good script!) regardless of their gender. I think a reason why this "all female Ghostbusters!" thing can seem somewhat of a "gimmick" is because of the amount of noise it's created in the media - whether intended or not by Feig, Sony et al - in a sort of "look at me, look at me!" manner. Perhaps the fluster also shows up, to a degree, in wider society how an all female line up can still boil some blood around the world (silly, really).

I think it's also partly down to Ghostbusters - as a franchise, a property, a beloved cultural landmark - being so keenly identified with those four specific guys. They're the creators of the franchise which essentially started and stopped with them for the last 30 years. You'd have had total nerd rage if they'd said they were keeping the four main characters - Peter, Ray, Egon, Winston - but were re-casting them with new actors (perhaps some hunky 90210 beefcake types).

For some people out there - in the world in general - I'm certain that the gender of the proposed four new 'busters (we know nothing else of their characters, or final cast count, or if it actually will be all-female) is their specific beef. For others it'll be part of their beef, but I'm also certain that for some people the issue is really about it not being those four guys (not that it'd even be physically possible these days, sadly).

There's various shades to this issue.

Flipping from all male to all female feels binary. If anything it feels like a step behind where we actually need to be - which is equality - why not half male and half female with their relationship to each other defined by their work place and their field of work, and not by their jiggly bits?

Nailed it, as usual. :thumbsup:

Now excuse me, I have to get back to work on my reboot of "The Vagina Monologues" with the cast of "The Expendables". :D

[Legion2213]

I would take Gillian Anderson in anything. Especially my bed. :D

If she gets "slimed" in this movie, I will go and see it. :D

[MinionZombie]

Just to say to folks - let's not allow this thread to get overheated ... play nice everyone. :)


Now excuse me, I have to get back to work on my reboot of "The Vagina Monologues" with the cast of "The Expendables". :D

:lol::lol::lol:

I just had a vision of Stallone mumbling his way through a chapter on his first wet dream and doing that wail/scream thing he does when he gets really mad in movies. :p

[MoonSylver]

If she gets "slimed" in this movie, I will go and see it. :D

Prevert. :lol:

[Legion2213]

Prevert. :lol:

:D

(deliberate Dr Strangelove reference there?)

[MoonSylver]

:D

(deliberate Dr Strangelove reference there?)

Who, me?

http://movie-dude.co.uk/Keenan%20Wynn%20%20Dr%20Strangelove%20(1963).jpg

[Legion2213]

Who, me?

http://movie-dude.co.uk/Keenan%20Wynn%20%20Dr%20Strangelove%20(1963).jpg

:lol:

[EvilNed]

Flipping from all male to all female feels binary. If anything it feels like a step behind where we actually need to be - which is equality - why not half male and half female with their relationship to each other defined by their work place and their field of work, and not by their jiggly bits?

The final destination is equality. And not in a Ghostbusters movie, I don't really care about one movie (but I do care about what a big issue it becomes when you swap the cast). But let me take a moment to answer that one argument of yours - Equality.

We're not an equal country. If you look at wages, women represented in politics, womens rights' and women represented on the boards of big companies, this all becomes to apparent. Giving women an "affirmative action" now and then is required because men get that treatment all the time, no matter what you do. But we men get it without a fuzz, without a news articlem without headlines. We get it because we're men.

So therefore, equality - straight down the line - doesn,t work as a means to achieving awareness to what big problems we as a society have. This is a perfect example. An all-male cast? Nobody bats an eye. An all-female cast? No wait, that's gimmicky.

In a perfect world, we would be able to have all manner of casts without anyone batting an eye. But this is not a perfect world. In the end, that's where we hope to end up. But we're not there yet and not by a long shot. We have to force our society to accept a reality where women can take an equal part in our media and politics, because that's the only way people are going to get used to it. And that's what it's all about now, getting people used to the idea that women can do things too.

Also, MoonSylver, if you haven't noticed I don't respond to your posts. The reason is I just don't read them. Your way of arguing is way to belittling unto others.

[MoonSylver]

Also, MoonSylver, if you haven't noticed I don't respond to your posts. The reason is I just don't read them. Your way of arguing is way to belittling unto others.

I'll have to stop reading yours too then, as oddly they illicit the exact same response.

[shootemindehead]

The final destination is equality....

In fairness, cynical hollywood moves to garner profit for their (increasingly worsening) product has absolutely nothing to do with equality for women.

[EvilNed]

Created a new topic aimed at discussing feminism in particular, so we don't bog this topic down more:

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=22659&p=308405#post308405

[MinionZombie]

"Positive Discrimination" is still discrimination. Perhaps it's naive or fanciful at this point in our society's development to feel this way, but I don't agree with "positive discrimination" because it's still a form of discrimination and isn't a fair or level playing field. There's absolutely unfair levels of pay etc and that absolutely must be fixed ... the methods/style of getting there is where we seem to differ somewhat.

With something as relatively light and straight forward as a movie though, surely we can skip right to the point where we need to be - equality - rather than going through earlier steps that, unfortunately, seem to be required to gradually turn society around. But, when it comes to our culture, why not go right to the end point goal with something like a movie, if that makes sense?

Of course, there'll also always - and rightfully - be a call for the Bridesmaids and Expendables of the movie/TV world. What's right and true for the story being told ... but that's a whole other thing that could be discussed at length.

[Trancelikestate]

Appreciate Ned putting a fork in the road. Back on topic. All has been quiet on the rumor front. It's a nice tranquility. Further elaborating on my previous statement about the video game: It really is part 3. It ties the stories from the first two movies together whilst successfully passing the torch to a new generation. If they acknowledged it as canon and did a 4th story involving all new people it would make sense. The game is funny and makes me laugh even still. I usually replay it about as much as I'd rewatch a movie. One thing to point out is the actors were never in the studio recording their voices together so no actual charisma took place like the popular ad libbing that occurred in the originals. And speaking of that, do we really expect the same type of charisma from ANY new project? I know I and Bass don't.

[EvilNed]

"Positive Discrimination" is still discrimination. Perhaps it's naive or fanciful at this point in our society's development to feel this way, but I don't agree with "positive discrimination" because it's still a form of discrimination and isn't a fair or level playing field. There's absolutely unfair levels of pay etc and that absolutely must be fixed ... the methods/style of getting there is where we seem to differ somewhat.

Responded in the thread. But basicly: YOU recieve positive discrimination all the time, sp why deny them?

[MinionZombie]

Ned - I think I've already covered the essentials of my views on the subject within this thread. From my experience, whether on HPOTD or social media, political threads just end up doing my head in because inevitably it either becomes, or starts out as, two brick walls not moving in any direction. What's the point?

I think our views on the hows and wherefores of the issue are somewhat different with the same goal in mind.

My mother was educated and worked during the 60s and 70s, when the imbalance was stark. Then, as now, as she's told me herself numerous times, if she was offered positive discrimination she'd reject it because she just wanted a level playing field - she continues to strongly believe in that principle to this day. My sister feels exactly the same way in the present day work world: Achievement and advancement earned through her own merit and not based on her gender, and it's working out well for her. That's where I got my view on the matter of "positive" discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination.

There's really very little, or perhaps nothing else, that I have to say on the matter. I'll respectfully leave it at that. :)

...

Back to Ghostbusters specifically - yep - the videogame was the real Ghostbusters 3. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was such a fun time to strap on a proton pack and go bust some ghosts, wrestling them into the traps, revisiting locations from the movies - such a good time! :thumbsup:

[EvilNed]

MZ, super short answer here regarding your family or mom:

1) She shouldn't have to be fighting an uphill battle because of how she was Born.
2) Think how far she might've come had the playing field been level.

[MinionZombie]

MZ, super short answer here regarding your family or mom:

1) She shouldn't have to be fighting an uphill battle because of how she was Born.
2) Think how far she might've come had the playing field been level.

And a super short response in kind. ;)

1a) My Mum's experience in the work place and my Sister's experience in the work place are different, in that things (in work and wider society) have improved generally from one to the other over time.
1b) I agree. You shouldn't have to fight an uphill battle because you were born female. This said, at least in my sister's case (and seemingly for her female collegues in her peer group), her gender hasn't be an impediment to her career advancement.
2) Neither my Mum nor my Sister have wanted, or would want, to advance on the basis of bias in their favour specifically because of their gender. Doing so wouldn't be a level playing field, it'd be a playing field tipped in the other direction - fighting bias with bias, or discrimination with discrimination, isn't the answer in their view or my view. I think there are more creative, fair, and balanced ways of achieving the end goal of equality, than essentially repeating the same mistake on the other side of the coin. I can understand the viewpoint, and see that it could work in some ways, but I don't agree with the method, and we both have the same goal in mind.

Shall we consider this particular discussion exhausted?

...

Back to Ghostbusters - did anyone see the 30th Anniversary release trailer?

EQCCPP8aZBY

Seeing a movie I'm so familiar with, from the 1980s, summed up via 'present day' trailer editing techniques really shows up just how shitty most modern day trailers are. Ugh ... although GB is so great that it can still shine through such a terrible trailer.

[EvilNed]

The point is not exhausted, as You missed the point. but you did so partly thanks to my short outlying of said point. I'll respond to this in the other thread if for no other reason than to make a definite end in this thread. Suffice to say, I equal Sexism to Racism, and sexism goes far, far deeper than just objectifying women. The point of Sexism and Equality is not exhausted until we have all recognized it's existance.

Edit: just to be clear, i mean i wasnt very clear or elaborate. Which was my fault.

[bassman]

Official release date and strongly-rumored cast: http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/line-up-for-all-female-ghostbusters-revealed-plus-official-release-date-137

July 22, 2016. A day which I'm betting will go down as one of cinematic history's most face-palming moments.

I actually like the choice of Wiig and McKinnon(both former SNL members, much like Aykroyd and Murray, coincidentally), but McCarthy is a bit single-noted for my taste. I don't believe I know the other cast member's work. Even with a fantastic cast, I still have a hard time seeing this being successful critically. It most likely will be successful financially, but that could be just because of the name "Ghostbusters"....

[Trancelikestate]

I still don't think it's happening. The amount of hate being expressed over social media is overwhelming and I'm surprised it hasn't gone as far as death threats and all that non sense. It'll be successful BECAUSE of all the hate but again, I still think it's a publicity stunt.

Bad as this news was at least we're not Fantastic Four fans.

[MoonSylver]

Bad as this news was at least we're not Fantastic Four fans.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c9/0c/a5/c90ca5b93ce3598d3ece9a8c21867acf.jpg

New FF reboot will make last FF movies look like "The Avengers" in comparison, & will = :mad::barf::rant::annoyed::hurl::fork:

[Shadow Master]

This reboot is such a terrible idea. I'm a big fan of the first two movies but I feel it's best to let this series rest in peace. Only good I see coming from this is perhaps GB2 will finally be more respected. I guess I'm in the minority but I always loved GB2 and while I'd never argue it being better than the first, I find it's just as entertaining.

[MinionZombie]

It's interesting that they're going to do an "all male" Ghostbusters movie (apparently starring Channing Tatum), which just reinforces my view that this "all female" idea is a step behind where we actually need to be - can't we have a cast that has willies and fannies? Grow up, Hollywood! :D

I don't envy anyone involved in the new Ghostbusters at all - having to step up to the plate left by the first two (especially the first one), and thirty years of entrenched fan love for the franchise ... that's a daunting task.

Shadow Master - yeah, I love GB2. Ghostbusters - including the sequel and the cartoon show - was my Star Wars. I can see that, arguably, GB2 isn't as good as GB1, and that it copies the first in many ways (versions of similar scenes or ideas from the first), but then again it's copying parts from a perfect movie, so if you're going to be close to something, be close to something excellent. For me though, GB1 and 2 are always a pair ... I love them both. :)

[Shadow Master]

Me too, I find I always watch them together :) They feel incomplete if one isn't watched without the other. A great duo. And to me it's always better to have one good sequel than a bunch of bad ones, so if not getting GB3 and beyond spared us from some poor sequels I'm fine with that.

[bassman]

As has been said before, as far as I'm concerned, the original crew ended off a perfect trilogy before Ramis' passing. GB:The Video Game was a perfect third movie that tied everything together, so I'll forever feel lucky that we finally got a rounded out story. Even if the final entry was in CGI/Video Game form.

[MinionZombie]

As has been said before, as far as I'm concerned, the original crew ended off a perfect trilogy before Ramis' passing. GB:The Video Game was a perfect third movie that tied everything together, so I'll forever feel lucky that we finally got a rounded out story. Even if the final entry was in CGI/Video Game form.

Agreed! I loved the videogame. I'd quite like to give it another spin, but I sold my copy a while back when the trade-in price suddenly jumped way up.

It was insanely satisfying to blast a ghost and wrestle them down into the trap! :thumbsup:

[bassman]

Of course you all know I'm a massive Ghostbusters fan, so i'm perfectly aware that I'm biased, buuuuuut.....I just threw up in my mouth a little....

1378

1377

[MinionZombie]

Why the stripes? Bit of a weird choice, isn't it?

Naturally - as Ghostbusters was my Star Wars - I'm not a fan of the new proton pack either.

[Neil]

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/XcLCIaR1M_nens3RTzeTP_qBwCM=/0x69:713x470/960x540/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/46711646/Screen_Shot_2015-07-10_at_4.01.41_PM.0.0.png

[shootemindehead]

Ticking all the hollywood by-the-numbers boxes.

This is going to suck so badly.

[Trancelikestate]

Yeah, but it's funny to watch the supporters on the ol FB though. They want a new movie so badly they'll accept anything. They don't even consider how cliche and generic this is. Slapped together for the masses ONLY without a fan boy thought in mind like so many reboots. This is a bad as it gets. Poor Ramis. Being capitalized on like a stalk of sugar cane. I'm ashamed. I wish everyone were smart enough to see it. We have devolved ladies and gentlemen. Bridesmaids with proton packs. I'm considering protesting outside the theater in my gear with a sign that says "God hates reboots" but that's too much effort. Like Robocop, total recall and all the others, it will fade away even from Netflix. Still though, I love watching people convert with each new image released. Those who began as supporters and positive are slowly turning. And if they don't they're clearly convincing themselves. It's like watching Randy convince himself he likes tweenwave.

sfOzTl1pVyg

[bassman]

While I still find the entire concept behind this remake to be ridiculous, I've kinda lightened up on it recently. Sure, all the pictures look stupid but it never had a chance of standing up and going toe-to-toe with the original anyway. After this thing comes and goes, the original will still reign supreme. I found Bridesmaids to be funny and I've heard Spy is actually pretty good, so this new version of Ghostbusters may have a few good laughs. Other than that, the original will still have all the quotable lines, classic imagery, and remain the piece of pop culture that it's been for 30+ years...

[Neil]

Bill Murray is in it? - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/72644

[bassman]

So its been confirmed that all three of the surviving original actors have cameos, Annie Potts(Janine) has a cameo, and they even filmed at the original HQ, the Hook and Ladder 8 fire station in New York.....so after all these years of trying for a third film and then turning to a remake, only to have all the originals appear....why the f*ck could this have not been an official third film and a "passing of the torch" story?!?

[Neil]

So its been confirmed that all three of the surviving original actors have cameos, Annie Potts(Janine) has a cameo, and they even filmed at the original HQ, the Hook and Ladder 8 fire station in New York.....so after all these years of trying for a third film and then turning to a remake, only to have all the originals appear....why the f*ck could this have not been an official third film and a "passing of the torch" story?!?

I imagine they were simply offered a large bag of $$$$ to turn up for a couple of days just to try and give the film some more credibility with fans?

[bassman]

I imagine they were simply offered a large bag of $$$$ to turn up for a couple of days just to try and give the film some more credibility with fans?

My thoughts exactly. It's just very frustrating to me as a fan that they've gone out of their way to include these people and imagery from the original iconic film as an attempt to lure in fans, but the same sort of cash payout and short days of filming could have also led to an official third film, thus leading to future installments that continue what was started in 1984. The retelling of the origin story was basically pointless.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah ... this is a bit hmmmm inducing, isn't it?

I dislike the 'just start over' idea. I really think it should have been a passing of the torch - that would have been more interesting, and I think, more respectful. These cameos, or whatever they are, smack more of a cobbled-together ploy to appease the dedicated GB fans. :rockbrow:

[shootemindehead]

Well, I won't be falling for it. This will have to be nothing short of unexpectedly brilliant for me to even attempt to download it.

Right now, it looks appalling.

[Trancelikestate]

Yes, they've really outdone themselves. Capitalizing on Harolds death. They make me nauseous.

[MinionZombie]

I saw something online earlier that Sigourney Weaver will be making an appearance as well!

To be honest, with so many cast members turning up - and not playing their former characters - it feels more and more cynical with every announcement, to be brutally honest.

There was a thing a while back where the cast went to visit a kid's hospital all dressed up in their gear, and obviously photos were taken. Now, a good cause and all that - very good - however ... being that the movie hasn't even finished shooting, and so therefore there's no actual movie that people have seen, they aren't ghostbusters yet. In some ways it felt like a marketing/PR move dreamed up by some behind-the-scenes berk. It felt kinda strange ... a little bit 'unearned' ... if they'd visited after the movie had opened in cinemas it might actually make a bit more sense, but while it's still in production? :rockbrow:

Anyway, circling back to yet another prior cast member turning up for a cameo/whatever - this is getting a bit silly now - and unless there's some sort of "we said it was cameos, but actually it's all been a massive ruse to keep the true script a secret, and they're all playing their original characters" pronouncement in the future, then this just feels weird. :shifty:

If you're going to be your own thing - be your own thing - if you're going to have practically every original cast member in your movies, then be connected to the original movies. This half-assed middle-ground smacks more of appeasement and PR. It could all turn out wonderfully in the end, which would be great, but this is all just giving me iffy vibes...

[bassman]

I highly doubt it at this point, but given that Ivan Reitman has the rights to "Ghost Corps" (part of this new movie deal, giving him the rights to make future films and merchandising) and all the original cast has appeared, maybe there's a small chance that they changed the script a bit to be a continuation of the original series but they're still calling them cameos to throw off the press.

Like I said, highly doubt it, but Reitman and Pearce have said that they DO have solid ideas how to connect everything. They also made those statements close to the beginning of Feig's film, so they could've made last minute changes. Unlikely, but a guy can hope!

[MinionZombie]

I highly doubt it at this point, but given that Ivan Reitman has the rights to "Ghost Corps" (part of this new movie deal, giving him the rights to make future films and merchandising) and all the original cast has appeared, maybe there's a small chance that they changed the script a bit to be a continuation of the original series but they're still calling them cameos to throw off the press.

Like I said, highly doubt it, but Reitman and Pearce have said that they DO have solid ideas how to connect everything. They also made those statements close to the beginning of Feig's film, so they could've made last minute changes. Unlikely, but a guy can hope!

Interesting theory! It certainly holds water ... whether it'll come to pass or not remains to be seen ... but stranger things have happened. It always struck me as a really dumb idea to ignore GB 1 & 2, particularly as a previous idea for a third movie had been the 'passing the torch' vibe. I wonder if we'll end up getting an announcement that Ackroyd has done a cameo next. I mean with this many "cameos" it'd be daft not to at this point (if he's willing to join in, that is).

[bassman]

Aykroyd has already done his filming for the reboot. He was the first one confirmed, actually. All of the living original cast has filmed at the point. Excluding Moranis, who is retired, of course.

[MinionZombie]

Aykroyd has already done his filming for the reboot. He was the first one confirmed, actually. All of the living original cast has filmed at the point. Excluding Moranis, who is retired, of course.

Oh! I must have missed/forgotten that!

Well, there we are. Surely there's been a script change with all these people filming "cameos" ... if they haven't grabbed the opportunity to seize the "torch pass" route, even at this late stage, then they've royally buggered up.

[bassman]

Oh! I must have missed/forgotten that!

Well, there we are. Surely there's been a script change with all these people filming "cameos" ... if they haven't grabbed the opportunity to seize the "torch pass" route, even at this late stage, then they've royally buggered up.

There are strong rumors as to what each cameo is. I'll put them in spoilers just in case....

Aykroyd is a cab driver, Murray is some sort of city official(possibly rallying against the new ghostbusters), and Hudson is a real estate agent and possibly Leslie Jones' father.

These could possibly be a sort of "where are they now?" for the original characters? They've moved on after the events of GB2? Murray's definitely seems to fit with the character of Venkman, anyway.

[MinionZombie]

First trailer:

w3ugHP-yZXw

Meh.

Thumbs downs are leading the ups by five thousand on the video at the moment.

[Trancelikestate]

Scooby doo+Bridesmaids+Goosebumps. Someone shoot me.

[EvilNed]

Meh.

Thumbs downs are leading the ups by five thousand on the video at the moment.

That's because the internet is full of insecure virgins who think the world is gonna end because suddenly one in ten action films doesn't feature an all male cast.
I think it looks mildly amusing. It seems to go the comedy route, which I think is the right choice. Adventure films these days are dead.

[shootemindehead]

Well...no surprises there.

[Trancelikestate]

The dislikes are about 23k ahead now.

[MinionZombie]

That's because the internet is full of insecure virgins who think the world is gonna end because suddenly one in ten action films doesn't feature an all male cast.

Yes, to be fair, the hatred surrounding the film is rather Internetty - but at the same time there'll be plenty of people who just don't like the vibe of this flick.

As I've said before, I think this 'flip the gender completely' is really a step behind where we should be. It feels a bit binary and it's proven to be an awful distraction for everything else the film is trying to do ... whatever it's trying to do is another issue entirely, and I'm not convinced by anything I've seen thus far. I think completely ignoring that GB1 and GB2 ever existed in that universe (unlike previous incarnations of the story for a new GB film) has stuck in the craw of many fans.

I think one issue about the 'all female' cast thing is it feels more about that than about it being a Ghostbusters movie ... if that makes sense? Then there was that trip to a children's ward with the cast in costume which felt far more like an advertising exercise than anything else that left a sour taste. Your movie's still in production and far from actually being released, but you're visiting children's wards to hop on the Avengers/DC bandwagon? Hmmm... :rockbrow:

I'm not averse to all female casts. I loved Bridesmaids and it felt a totally natural choice - whereas here with nu-GB it feels regressively engineered to make a point rather than a movie. That's that vibe it's putting out there. As I said above, it feels a bit binary and behind where we should be with this male/female issue. It should be a mixed cast, not this sort of 'segregation flip flop' that we've got, if that makes sense? I think that would have been a better - and frankly more interesting - fit for nu-GB, but there should also always be films that have all male or all female casts, if that's what suits the story/type of movie.

The Expendables makes sense to be all-male because it's shtick is 80s action movie stars all together on screen - who are almost all male anyway - and targetting a specific audience. Although I will say I rather enjoyed the inclusion of Ronda Rousey in #3, even if that film had troubles from an overlong running time and a stupid PG-13 rating. I'd totally watch an all-female Expendables flick, too - with all the iconic heroines of movies past and present.

A really good example of diversity - that also makes sense and fits the material - is the Fast & Furious franchise. Men and women side-by-side, all of them bringing it full-bore, and they're also a mix of nationalities and races ... and you know what? It's barely commented on whatsoever (and never to make some blunt, hand-wringing point) - it's just how it is, as it should be in life - about being a member of the team and having the back of your friends/family. In not making a big deal out of it, and as such they do far more for tolerance, acceptance, and cohesion.

Nu-GB might end up being okay, but this is ostensibly a remake of Ghostbusters. That in itself puts a great big mark against it.

[EvilNed]

The thing is, people don't raise an eyebrow when it comes to thousands of all-male cast films. The reason people are doing it now is because it's that uncommon. Which is a travesty, sure, but at least this film is trying to set that record straight. I applaud it's efforts. I hope it succeeds. I think it looks nice. I've yet to read or hear an argument against an all-female action film that makes any sense.

The argument you're making, that it's "going in the wrong direction", I only ever hear when it comes to all-female cast films or things of it's kind. Like, nobody ever says that when Die Hard 5 is announced. It is a traditionally male dominated genre, and with all male casts all over the board. Going after the one female film in an ocean of male film is just shallow and a sign of how twisted things have gone.


I loved Bridesmaids and it felt a totally natural choice - whereas here with nu-GB it feels regressively engineered to make a point rather than a movie. That's that vibe it's putting out there. As I said above, it feels a bit binary and behind where we should be with this male/female issue.

I agree that the gimmick is getting in the way of the movie - but that's the case with most films these days, isn't it? So why single this one out? I mean, wouldn't you say that the gimmick of Expendables is also getting in the way of the movie? I would. It's a very specific gimmick. Yet I enjoyed the first two (haven't seen 3), so I'm fine with that gimmick. Just as I'm fine with this one.
As for it being regressive, I don't buy it. If it's regressive to produce an all-female cast film, then why does nobody ever raise an eyebrow at all-male cast films? Maybe that is the point it's trying to make, and you can't deny that if that's the case - it's succeeded because that's all everyone is talking about including us.

It's very sad that people feel the need to attack this film for it's all-female cast. Why is that not allowed to exist? There's no good answer to that question.

EDIT: It should be noted, I'm not really a Ghostbusters fan. So I don't really care about the remake aspect of it. I am glad they actually did a twist on the gender roles rather than just remaking it. That'd suck. Bring something new and fresh. I like that they're doing that.

[Trancelikestate]

Let's consider this: (posted on another board, not my quote)

"Outside of my opinion of the trailer this must be a major backlash in terms of a trailer release/PR nightmare.
For comparison's sake the Fantastic 4 reboot from 2015 that was not well received has two trailers on youtube. One from April and the second from July for an August release.

the April one has 11m views with 40,523 likes to 7,092 dislikes
the July one has 7.6m views with 20,333 likes to 8,735 dislikes

the new Ghostbusters trailer isn't even 24 hours old with 5.5m views as of 1:00am eastern with 70,477 likes to 103, 187 dislikes. Those numbers are bonkers.

I zeroed in on the F4 reboot for comparison because it was a reboot and had some similar dislike built in with fans before people saw the film that ultimately won a Razzie."

[shootemindehead]

The all woman gimmick is just that. A gimmick. Used by "money (wo)men" in Hollywood to sell a sub par product and hopefully try and con an unaware/non-discerning audience into parting with their hard earned.

This whole mess is simply a misappropriation of a popular 80's title to fleece money out of people in yet another completely unnecessary sequel/reboot and by that yardstick, I believe a lot of people are angry against it.

Not being that massive a fan of the 1984 film (it's good, but ridiculously overrated by some), I don't really care that much. But, I certainly understand the ire that some people will have against this. My personal distaste for this rubbish stems from the tiresome remake/reboot cycle that has produced more duds than hits and will be completely unsurprised if this bombs. Although, I can see it possibly break even as cinema audiences these days are a very strange bunch and sometimes a film only has to break even to warrant a sequel.

That trailer, though, just confirms everything that I suspected before hand.

Seriously, this shitty thing needs to die and be buried deep. Very deep.

- - - Updated - - -


I mean, wouldn't you say that the gimmick of Expendables is also getting in the way of the movie?

The gimmick of 'The Expendables' IS the movie though. The story is shit and not even worth talking about. The whole film is simply a gimmick involving a nostalgia effort of watching old farts from crap 80's action films take the piss out of themselves.

The gimmick of an all woman ghostbusters does absolutely nothing for the film and is simply being used to generate some buzz. They're all pretty awful "characters" too by the look of that trailer. Just a box ticking excercise and an effort to mirror the original in some way.

It couldn't have been more lame tbh.

[Rottedfreak]

I stand by my original statement on this.

[EvilNed]

Let's consider this: (posted on another board, not my quote)

"Outside of my opinion of the trailer this must be a major backlash in terms of a trailer release/PR nightmare.
For comparison's sake the Fantastic 4 reboot from 2015 that was not well received has two trailers on youtube. One from April and the second from July for an August release.

the April one has 11m views with 40,523 likes to 7,092 dislikes
the July one has 7.6m views with 20,333 likes to 8,735 dislikes

the new Ghostbusters trailer isn't even 24 hours old with 5.5m views as of 1:00am eastern with 70,477 likes to 103, 187 dislikes. Those numbers are bonkers.

I zeroed in on the F4 reboot for comparison because it was a reboot and had some similar dislike built in with fans before people saw the film that ultimately won a Razzie."

Its getting so much publicity it's bound to do well.
F4 barely got any at all. There's a difference.

I get that there's alot of angry white dudes out there that feel that they should be ontop of everything. It's sad to see. But this isnt gonna be the last all-female action film, so let's not even bat an eye about it.

[bassman]

There are a few things I like, and quite a few I dislike. Judging from the trailer alone of course, the comedy is mostly completely different from the original. The original was more dialogue and situational driven, where as this seems to be more in-your-face and what I can only relate to fart gags. It's thirty years on and times have changed, so I guess that's to be expected. Although...I did laugh at Mckinnon's "is it the hat?" line. The biggest negative was definitely the part with the woman screaming and slapping the spirit out of McCarthy. That was cringe worthy and the trailer should've ended with the busters in times square.

Now here's my biggest nerdy conundrum with this thing...is it a continuation or a complete remake? There are soooo many hints that this may actually be a third film in the existing franchise, but it seems like Sony is trying to play coy for some reason. The "30 years ago" text, the rumored rewrites and reshoots for franchise continuity reasons, the inclusion of the firehouse including interior shots with equipment and such, the spray painted ghostbusters logo in the subway(almost like the sort of "we remember" bat logos in The Dark Knight Rises), spoilery details regarding the original cast cameos, maybe even the times square scene of the busters obviously time travelling or walking through a parallel dimension 1970/80s times square(im thinking 70's because of the taxi driver advert though), etc. I'm thinking Sony feared the fan backlash and made some changes to make it a reboot rather than a full on remake. The original team has been out of business 30+ years, these new scientists discover a surge in paranormal activity, then are ultimately given the GB business by the original crew that has since moved on. One of them even being related to an original member...

I'll no doubt see this opening weekend, but I definitely don't feel comfortable with what I've seen so far. If it reinvigorates the franchise, that'd be wonderful. If only for future films like Reitman/Pierce's current GB project.

- - - Updated - - -


Its getting so much publicity it's bound to do well.
F4 barely got any at all. There's a difference.

I get that there's alot of angry white dudes out there that feel that they should be ontop of everything. It's sad to see. But this isnt gonna be the last all-female action film, so let's not even bat an eye about it.

I'm not touching the whole male/female debate again, but I just have to ask....do you see this or the existing GB films as action films? I've heard many people throughout the years referencing the ghostbusters as almost superheroes and that's always thrown me off. Curious to hear how some folks see it as action whereas it was intended as, and I personally only see it as, comedy.

[shootemindehead]

Only ever a comedy to me and a pretty small time one at that. It somehow morphed into the must see film of 1984 though and managed to get Hollywood execs into a funk trying to replicate that success for years and years. Christ, even the filmmakers were flabergasted by its success. They didn't even know what the formula was either.

It would have been much, much, better if they had just let the original film stand alone. If ever there was a picture that didn't need a sequel, remake, reboot, reimagining or whatever your having your self...it's 'Ghostbusters'.

[bassman]

Only ever a comedy to me and a pretty small time one at that.

It somehow morphed into the must see film of 1984 though and managed to get Hollywood execs into a funk trying to replicate that success for years and years. Christ, even the filmmakers were flabergasted by its success. They didn't even know what the formula was either.

I'd have to disagree with that. There are interviews with the cast and crew both during and after filming where they state they know they have something special on their hands. Ramis, Akroyd, and Reitman hit on a winning formula and they actually knew what that was. When GBII started to come to fruition, Columbia Pictures basically f*cked them over. The original GB2 script was just obliterated by the studio due to the success of the GB cartoon. The studio wanted a kid-friendly special effects extravaganza while the creators were trying to apply their formula to a different story. Unfortunately at that point they had already signed contracts, so they were stuck with it. This is one of the bigger factors as to why they never were able to continue the series. It scared them away, including Murray.


It would have been much, much, better if they had just let the original film stand alone. If ever there was a picture that didn't need a sequel, remake, reboot, reimagining or whatever your having your self...it's 'Ghostbusters'.

While I'll never say GB2 is on par with the original, I think it does have some solid laughs and ideas throughout. I enjoy it quite a bit, really. So if there is only one good thing to come from Feig's remake, it's that GB2 can no longer be widely referred to as "the crappy ghostbusters". :lol:

[shootemindehead]

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject Bassy. I've only ever thought of the film as a grand memory from the 80's myself. It means more to you than it does to me.

TBH, I think 'Ghostbusters II' was ok and far from the disaster that a lot of people say it was. It's not a patch on the original of course.

I didn't know that Columbia did the lads over. If that's the case then it goes some way to explaining things. But even so, I still think there was an element of "lightening in a bottle" with 'Ghostbusters' that was always going to be really difficult to replicate. It's a real shame, though, that the original lads couldn't get another film together to round off a trilogy. Although, maybe it was a good thing too. Diminishing returns and all that. Who knows.

This thing though is nothing but a cash in on a famous, instantly recognisable name. I don't think I'll be bothering with it. But if it turns out to be good, I'll be happy to be proven wrong. I though 'Mad Max' was going to be rubbish and that turned out to be one of the films of the year.

Ah well...sure it happens to the best of us after all. :cool:

[bassman]

It's a real shame, though, that the original lads couldn't get another film together to round off a trilogy.

Not in film form, but Ghostbusters: The Video Game on PS3/XBOX 360 is actually the PERFECT third film. If you play video games, I highly recommend it. It's essentially playing through a third film that ties the whole trilogy together, written by Aykroyd and Ramis, and features all of the original cast voices/likenesses. It was surprisingly very well made and captures the "feel" of the original film. It's a shame they were never able to make the actual third film, but this game pretty much nails it all around. Aside from the story being well done, it's also very fun to play regardless of the player's GB fandom.

[MinionZombie]

The thing is, people don't raise an eyebrow when it comes to thousands of all-male cast films.

The argument you're making, that it's "going in the wrong direction", I only ever hear when it comes to all-female cast films or things of it's kind.

I agree that the gimmick is getting in the way of the movie - but that's the case with most films these days, isn't it? So why single this one out? I mean, wouldn't you say that the gimmick of Expendables is also getting in the way of the movie? I would. It's a very specific gimmick.

As for it being regressive, I don't buy it. If it's regressive to produce an all-female cast film, then why does nobody ever raise an eyebrow at all-male cast films? Maybe that is the point it's trying to make, and you can't deny that if that's the case - it's succeeded because that's all everyone is talking about including us.

It's very sad that people feel the need to attack this film for it's all-female cast. Why is that not allowed to exist? There's no good answer to that question.

I'm not really a Ghostbusters fan. So I don't really care about the remake aspect of it.

1) It needs to be what works for the property. There are also films that are primarily/all female - and that's not a recent thing, either - or films where the lead is a woman, it just so happens that that's how the story shakes out.

2) "Going in the wrong direction" brings in a wide range of potential criticisms - and is a statement targetted at any film, regardless of who the cast are, that is looking to be a dud or have serious problems with it.

Mad Max Fury Road is a great example of how to get it right - and by "it" I mean both getting a 30 year old franchise going again, and having men and women side-by-side on-screen. Max and Furiosa battle, fight, and work side-by-side throughout. Their back stories are strong and completely fit within the story of Fury Road and within what Mad Max is as a franchise. It doesn't feel forced, or binary, it feels completely natural, while also being able to make a point or two - but, again, in a way that entirely works for the material and the franchise at large.

3) The gimmick of The Expendables is the entire point of the movie. The stories are serviceable, but aren't deep or surprising - but that's not really the way to present that material, the stories are there to serve the gimmick - 80s action heroes on screen together fighting with/against each other.

4) For me, the female cast issue is more about it in connection to Ghostbusters than movies in general. I'm totally fine with an all female cast, or an all male cast, or an entirely mixed cast (I refer back to how spot-on the Fast & Furious franchise gets it when it comes to a diverse cast that sits comfortably, very comfortably, with the material and with the franchise in general).

I think part of the problem is that Ghostbusters is a seriously iconic film. It would be like remaking Back to the Future (a creative travesty of an idea) and saying "All the boys are now girls and all the girls are now boys, woo, look how right-on we're being, aren't we good? Please say we're good!" - Ghostbusters is so linked to that particular cast. Even if this movie exactly replicated the placement and split of men and women, it'd still get a tongue lashing - because it isn't those four very specific guys who made Ghostbusters the beloved and recognisable franchise that it is. Another problem is the - apparent - disregard of all that came before (i.e. GB1 and GB2 don't exist). This is not only jarring, but it has that full-on smack of movie remake beligerance. If they have changed the script to include GB1&2 as cannon - and incorporated a 'passing of the torch' theme (which would work far better IMHO, and be easier for established fans to swallow) - then why haven't they been shouting it from the rooftops?

5)
that's all everyone is talking about Which says, to me at least, that they're failing at the main task - to be a Ghostbusters movie. The public - and that goes for everyone, regardless of gender, age, race, whatever - don't like having a finger wagged in their face, or having a point driven into their skull with a hammer. The fact that the "all female" thing has taken over the project illustrates what a clumsy move it has been - and again I refer back to my "behind where we should actually be on this issue" assertion. 'Doing something different' - are they though? Numerous parts of that trailer just look like cookie cutter copies of elements from the original movie. The racial mix is exactly the same - heck, people could complain that the black lady (who, generically enough, is sassy and shouts a lot) isn't a scientist in this one, but all the white ladies are. Actually, some people have made that complaint - but isn't that always the case? There's always something to complain about, there's always something not being represented, or something not being balanced out - much like in life (which is part of the struggle and variety of life in itself).

Ultimately, my point is, the binary flip/flop of "they were all guys before, so now we'll just do all women" is, to me, a step behind where we should really be on this issue. Ghostbusters isn't gender or race specific as a concept, it's not a film for socio-political issues. To use it as a vehicle to make a point (rather than, I dunno, make new franchises, new concepts, new stories with all female casts, or female dominated casts - if that's what the material requires/would benefit from) gets in the way of what nu-GB should be doing, which is be a good Ghostbusters movie - and going on the strength of that trailer, there's either a huge uphill battle to be fought (and an advertising campaign in need of new leadership) or they've buggered it up.

Sometimes a movie just shouldn't be remade ... like Back to the Future, or The Shawshank Redemption, or Casablanca, or Thelma & Louise ... or, in my view, Ghostbusters.

A "Fury Road" or "Creed" style addition/continuation to the franchise that fits in with what the franchise should be? Let's talk, otherwise jog on. Good remakes are rare things indeed.

6)
I'm not really a Ghostbusters fan. ... Well to me Ghostbusters is my Star Wars, so that should explain a lot.

...

Speaking more generally, if they wanted to bring back Ghostbusters they should have (going on the strength of this trailer as that's all we've got to go on right now) tried to go more in the direction of Mad Max Fury Road or Creed - both of which acknowledge the past of their respective franchises, reboot/restart/rejuvinate the franchise in a fan friendly way, and mix the old and the new together.

One positive I will say - the ghosts look pretty cool, like the effects, I mean. CGI tweaks to people who were there on set (e.g. wearing LED light suits and spraying practical goo about).

Not a fan of that 'trap' though ... feels too 'production designery' if that makes sense? There was something wonderfully utilitarian about the original trap's design - like something somebody would make rather than draw in a production sketch book. It's like Leatherface's mask in TCM1 vs TCM2.


I get that there's alot of angry white dudes out there that feel that they should be ontop of everything. It's sad to see. But this isnt gonna be the last all-female action film, so let's not even bat an eye about it.

Action film? Since when was Ghostbusters an action film? :rockbrow: It's a comedy, first a foremost ... you could call it a "supernatural comedy", perhaps. :D

Also, bit of a generalisation, much? Yes, there are plenty of asshats making a stink, but there's plenty of Ghostbusters fans - in general, of all genders and races - who are non-plussed by this whole remake-that-nobody's-calling-a-remake-but-which-might-not-be-as-much-of-a-remake-as-initially-thought-but-if-so-why-haven't-they-just-stated-that-loud-and-proud ... *gasps* ... movie. :p


Now here's my biggest nerdy conundrum with this thing...is it a continuation or a complete remake? There are soooo many hints that this may actually be a third film in the existing franchise, but it seems like Sony is trying to play coy for some reason. The "30 years ago" text, the rumored rewrites and reshoots for franchise continuity reasons, the inclusion of the firehouse including interior shots with equipment and such, the spray painted ghostbusters logo in the subway(almost like the sort of "we remember" bat logos in The Dark Knight Rises), spoilery details regarding the original cast cameos, maybe even the times square scene of the busters obviously time travelling or walking through a parallel dimension 1970/80s times square(im thinking 70's because of the taxi driver advert though), etc. I'm thinking Sony feared the fan backlash and made some changes to make it a reboot rather than a full on remake. The original team has been out of business 30+ years, these new scientists discover a surge in paranormal activity, then are ultimately given the GB business by the original crew that has since moved on. One of them even being related to an original member...

And IF they've re-written it to be a continuation WHY are Sony et al being so coy with this trailer? Why not just flippin' state that and avoid so much of the trouble? :confused: IF they've changed it about, they had a chance to flip the switch of perception here in a big, bad way - but willfully missed it.


So if there is only one good thing to come from Feig's remake, it's that GB2 can no longer be widely referred to as "the crappy ghostbusters". :lol:

:lol::lol::lol:

I think GB2 gets treated a bit harshly by some out there. It's obviously not as good as GB1, and copies the first film an awful lot - but I dig it. GB1 reigns supreme, naturally, but I also dig GB2.


Not in film form, but Ghostbusters: The Video Game on PS3/XBOX 360 is actually the PERFECT third film.

Agreed! I loved that game! SO GOOD! :)

Sorry for the long-arse post, chaps! :lol:

[shootemindehead]

Not in film form, but Ghostbusters: The Video Game on PS3/XBOX 360 is actually the PERFECT third film. If you play video games, I highly recommend it. It's essentially playing through a third film that ties the whole trilogy together, written by Aykroyd and Ramis, and features all of the original cast voices/likenesses. It was surprisingly very well made and captures the "feel" of the original film. It's a shame they were never able to make the actual third film, but this game pretty much nails it all around. Aside from the story being well done, it's also very fun to play regardless of the player's GB fandom.

Aye, I have it knocking around somewhere, but I trailed off with it fairly early one. It just didn't grab me.

I might have a bash again soon and see if I react differently. I recently started 'Alan Wake' up again after getting mightily bored with that a few years ago and I'll probably finish a playthrough this time.

I don't consider computer games as canon though. Doesn't feel right to me at all.

[EvilNed]

1) It needs to be what works for the property. There are also films that are primarily/all female - and that's not a recent thing, either - or films where the lead is a woman, it just so happens that that's how the story shakes out.

2) "Going in the wrong direction" brings in a wide range of potential criticisms - and is a statement targetted at any film, regardless of who the cast are, that is looking to be a dud or have serious problems with it.

Mad Max Fury Road is a great example of how to get it right - and by "it" I mean both getting a 30 year old franchise going again, and having men and women side-by-side on-screen. Max and Furiosa battle, fight, and work side-by-side throughout. Their back stories are strong and completely fit within the story of Fury Road and within what Mad Max is as a franchise. It doesn't feel forced, or binary, it feels completely natural, while also being able to make a point or two - but, again, in a way that entirely works for the material and the franchise at large.

3) The gimmick of The Expendables is the entire point of the movie. The stories are serviceable, but aren't deep or surprising - but that's not really the way to present that material, the stories are there to serve the gimmick - 80s action heroes on screen together fighting with/against each other.

4) For me, the female cast issue is more about it in connection to Ghostbusters than movies in general. I'm totally fine with an all female cast, or an all male cast, or an entirely mixed cast (I refer back to how spot-on the Fast & Furious franchise gets it when it comes to a diverse cast that sits comfortably, very comfortably, with the material and with the franchise in general).


1; there is nothing inherently male about ghostbusters.
2; I've already explained why I think this argument is bonkers, but no sense in repeating ourselves, is there? (I mean, let's not make a Land > Day out of this...)
3; Good point, but I can also flip it; the only reason people see this as a gimmick is because it's so rare. So while it's "groundbreaking" (for a lack of a better word), in ten years time you probably won't raise an eyebrow when something similar comes along.
4; I actually prefer this type of treatment to just a do-over. I think flipping gender roles is a good idea. I think this film is as good of an idea as we're likely to get out of Hollywood for a Ghostbusters sequel/remake.

[MinionZombie]

1; there is nothing inherently male about ghostbusters.

Likewise there's nothing inherently female about Ghostbusters - indeed, there's nothing inherently gender specific about Ghostbusters.

My point is really about the implementation of this particular cast - i.e. it seems to have been more about making a point, rather than anything else. The stick, rather than the carrot - and people don't like the stick, they don't like preaching, and they don't like finger wagging. You can drag a horse to water, and other metaphors.

How about, instead of going out of your way to make a point, you just be what you want for the future. Skip to the conclusion - a cast that just happens to be mixed and it's not an issue at all, it's not commented on, it isn't wiggled about in front of the audience to teach them a 'lesson' or blah-blah-blah, it's just how it is. Once again I refer back to how the Fast & Furious franchise has totally nailed that aspect. In other words - it's possible, it's happening right now and has been for years - so why the need to make a blunt point (the stick), when you could just mix things up and not bother commenting on it at all because it's just how the cast shakes out (the carrot)?

If we don't want it to be an issue - why does it need to still be addressed as an issue? Can't we just skip to the end goal?

As an aside: "Life On Mars" versus "Ashes To Ashes" - the former has two male leads, while the latter has mixed leads (female/male). The latter was the much more interesting of the two shows (which were linked by certain characters, plots, and themes, and shared the same universe). The binary flip (in the case of nu-GB), while getting in the way of itself by going the route of the stick, in some ways regenerates the issue - and cuts off creative possibilities.

Some stories are always going to require male or female dominated/exclusive casts - and that's still okay - whatever serves the story best is key. In this case, the binary flip - the 'positive discrimination' approach, you could say - has got in the way of the task at hand: making a good Ghostbusters movie, or at least, promoting the movie in a focused manner. I understand the fight, but I think the approach has been wrong and - I say once more - ultimately behind where we should be. Let's just skip to the conclusion already, yeah? Otherwise it's like wanting to reduce/get rid of the issue while continuing to make an issue out of the issue rather than just saying "the issue isn't an issue because the issue shouldn't matter, so we're not making an issue out of the issue and just cracking on", if that makes sense? :p

The rumours of an "all male Ghostbusters" film (as part of an 'expanded GB universe') drived the point home further as to how spectacularly they've blundered the "stick" approach. Flip-flopping one way and then right back again is the dumbest idea, and is pretty insulting to the audience when you think about it.

That's really what my frustration is with that particular issue. We have the same goal in mind, but our opinions on the approach to resolution are different.

But I have many issues with this entire project - for one (and biggest of all), it appears to ostensibly be a remake of Ghostbusters. The way the filmmakers and studio are squirming around that word just goes to show how remakes mostly produce crap or products that are worse than the original and not better. Surely the purpose of a remake is to have another go at a film that should work as a concept, but which you didn't get right the first time. The Maltese Falcon was made in 1931 - but who remembers that one? We all remember the 1941 version with Bogart - because they nailed it. Conversely, who remembers the 1978 remake of The Big Sleep? I never knew about it until just this second looking on IMDb, no, we all remember the 1946 version because that's when they nailed it.

The comedy just looks bad - that screamy, shouty, 'breaking the fourth wall without actually breaking it, but grinding everything to a halt so we can make a self-aware gag' nonsense ... the licking of the proton pistols (one: proton pistols?!, two: licking them, really?). I'm a big fan of Wiig, and McCarthy I can take or leave (it'd be good if she mixed in a few more St. Vincent type roles) ... the other two? I've absolutely no idea who they are. Hemsworth? Yeah he's alright.

There was something I read online, in a comment section IIRC, specifically about the hearse thing - in the trailer it's a classic vehicle that's well maintained. Where's the joke? It's a hearse? So? It's a Cadillac ... and? Whereas in the original it was a total shit-heap hunk of junk - the joke was in Ray thinking it was amazing, but there was a shit-ton of problems with it. Just a small thing, maybe, but it might be more representative of them missing the target with this remake-or-whatever-the-hell-it-is.

The P.R. for the film has also been woeful. The rather crass covert advertising campaign of them visiting a children's hospital in costume while the film was still in production (so, in other words, you aren't the Ghostbusters yet because you're film's not even finished, let alone released and seen by the public). The Avengers folks do it - but their films have actually been watched by those kids, and they just did it to cheer up the kids - here with the nu-GB cast getting tossed in it felt far more like some PR idiot's idea of a cheap bit of advertising, and/or some sort of 'face saving' exercise.

Further to this - again, why are they being so coy about the cameos of the original cast? Have they re-written it as a continuation? Are GB1&2 cannon, despite Feig & Co stating the complete opposite when they started the project?

The whole venture feels more like a way to rinse more money out of cinematically dormant franchise. It just feels wrong, it feels off, it feels more like a studio cash grab with questionable creative choices than a natural next step for the franchise. I really think they've missed a trick by not following up on that proposed idea of having the original Ghostbusters creating franchises elsewhere in the country - the handing of the torch - rather than this salt the earth and start over while constantly tossing in references to the original film. That in itself - tossing in a bunch of references - is very shaky ground to be on. You're just going to constantly remind people of how the original exists, and how good it was, and how whatever this new film is just isn't going to be up to snuff.

I don't envy Feig & Co at all. In many ways it's a task which cannot be succeeded at. Who knows, this could all turn out to be an absolute PR bugger up with a good film coming out through all the shit - but how likely is that, really? In the end the most likely outcome will be that it'll get some things right, but plenty of things wrong, and generally be "meh".

[EvilNed]

Eh. I gotta say I disagree with your hangup on the all-female cast. I don't think it's any more of a gimmick than what people will want it to be. You seem to want the gimmick to take more space than it actually does - which is why you're going off on this tangent.

Anyway, as I said, there's nothing inherently male about the story. So casting all females rather than all males does not really damage the IP. I like it.

[MinionZombie]

Am I also discussing a wider issue beyond the film itself? Yes, but why not when nu-GB is part of that wider analysis?

I don't think you're quite reading what I'm writing, Ned, and I don't know how to be any clearer in my thinking than I already have been.

[bassman]

And IF they've re-written it to be a continuation WHY are Sony et al being so coy with this trailer? Why not just flippin' state that and avoid so much of the trouble? :confused: IF they've changed it about, they had a chance to flip the switch of perception here in a big, bad way - but willfully missed it.

My guess is that they want to make it appear as a full on remake for the general audience that doesn't really care to see the original characters carried on. But at the same time, they want the connection for the legions of hardcore fans so that they're happy and don't lash out against the film.

Mind you, this is all IF there is a real connection to the originals. This is all speculation at this point and it's a BIG if.

Adding more fuel to the flames, fans that attended the premiere screening event of the trailer at the Sony/Ghost Corp lot say that Reitman assured the fans that BIG things are coming for the GB franchise and Feig's film is just the beginning. Of course we know that big things have to be coming considering Sony gave Reitman an entire block of the Sony offices lot that is now dressed like the firehouse, logos all about, and the cars parked on display, but from the way the fans in attendance explain it, Sony is looking to turn the GB franchise into something akin to Marvel or Star Wars. This leads me to believe this film must branch out into others, including the original films continuity in some form of fashion. I've even heard some quite plausible predictions that they're playing with alternate realities and parallel dimensions in order to make films in separate, yet connected continuity. GB has referenced alternate dimensions from the start, it was Aykroyd very idea for the abandoned third film, and you can see multiple portals and time changes throughout the new trailer. Remember how star trek was "remade", but ya know....not actually remade? :lol:

All speculation, but hey....that's the fun of fandom, I suppose. The greatest news from all this is that something is definitely coming after Feig's film and GB is alive and in the general population's mind again after 30 some odd years....

[EvilNed]

Am I also discussing a wider issue beyond the film itself? Yes, but why not when nu-GB is part of that wider analysis?

I don't think you're quite reading what I'm writing, Ned, and I don't know how to be any clearer in my thinking than I already have been.

Well, I can only issue the gender issues. I don't really like Ghostbusters that much so the remake aspect of it I can't comment on.
But for the gender issue, all I can say is that you're making it a bigger issue than it needs to be. The reason probably being that an all-female cast is unusual and out of the ordinary. You can't deny that the internet hate this film is generating from insecure white boys all over the world is unwarranted. It's a ghostbusters films and the ghostbusters are girls. Get over it.

Another thing to consider is also this; remember that men dominate everything. With that in mind, it's pretty arrogant to just want to "skip to the conclusion". That approach would take longer and would protect the ego of "the white man" for as much as possible. We won't get to the conclusion before we as a society can accept that yeah - some things can also be done with all female casts.
So I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

Mind you, in this case it's just a stupid Hollywood film that I don't really care about. But it's an underdog because of those aforementioned insecure white guys who feel that their prestige is threatened. I think that's sad.

[MinionZombie]

Bassman - interesting, RE: all that 'alternate universe' stuff.


So I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

Likewise (same goal sought, different methods in mind).

I say 'skip to the conclusion' because why not? It's only a movie, it's totally possible, and it's happening right now in other franchises. 'Positive discrimination' is just more discrimination, and seeking to undo segregation via more segregation just seems like the most bizarre method IMHO. But again - I'm speaking of the issue in general, beyond nu-GB, which is a representative fragment.

Ultimately I don't really care who the cast is as long as they're good at their job and the movie's good - the problem is the movie's not looking good (the comedy stylings, the remake aspect, the apparent disregard of the originals as cannon), and the point-making has got way beyond their control, taken over the project, and caused a distraction (as you said: "that's all everyone is talking about"). The idea of an 'all male Ghostbusters' in another film just illustrates how clumsy it's all been handled - hence 'skip to the conclusion' - because why not just do it and lead by example? Society is infinitely more complex, but a movie can be do whatever it wants right now.

There's undoubtedly plenty of arses on the Internet, some truly believe the bile they spew forth, while others are just trolling or poking sticks at the easily offended - so it makes me question whether it's been all that productive as a debate. There's been lazy generalisations on both sides of the chitter chatter out there on the web ... there's been an awful lot of shallow posers trying to make themselves look good on Social Media in reaction to nu-GB, and there's been an awful lot of scumbags saying stupid shit in reaction to nu-GB.

My prediction for it, in the end, is that it'll just be 'eh, okay'.

[EvilNed]

I say 'skip to the conclusion' because why not? It's only a movie, it's totally possible, and it's happening right now in other franchises. 'Positive discrimination' is just more discrimination, and seeking to undo segregation via more segregation just seems like the most bizarre method IMHO. But again - I'm speaking of the issue in general, beyond nu-GB, which is a representative fragment.


Because in a world where we "skip to the conclusion", we must be willing to accept all forms of types of entertainment. All male films and all female films. I personally hate shoehorned mixing as that promotes stereotypes. I don't mind stereotypes at all, I just find it's lazy writing. I don't want to live in a world of Fast and the Furious' films where there's the latino chick, the asian hacker, the black wisecracker etc. etc., I want my culture varied and this Ghostbusters film is a part of that zeitgeist.

I'd also like to point out that it is very healthy for us to be exposed to this all female cast of films. It's mere presence is enough to provoke argument, which is absurd in it's own right. I, for one, am very happy people are reacting to it. It shows how fucked up we are.

[MinionZombie]

I'll absolutely watch this movie ... but being that I never bother going to the cinema anymore except on exceedingly rare occasions, I'll probably end up borrowing it from someone or watching it when it rolls around on telly.


All male films and all female films.

Agreed.

All I'm saying is the implementation and P.R. for it on this project has been exceedingly clumsy. That and other things make it look like they don't really know what they're doing with this movie in general, or are struggling to get all their ideas lined up - and that worries me.

Who knows - it might be amazing - although that's highly unlikely at this point. Some of the jokes in that trailer ... ugh ... oh dear, as Neil might say. The ghosts look kinda cool though ... but not scary ... that's another concern. Ghostbusters was a little bit scary (that gnarly zombie-like taxi driver, the library ghost when it gets mad, the dog beasts etc) ... but, again, all you can really go on is the trailer at this point, and they can be misleading. The trailer for Terminator Salvation rocked, but the movie was a total bugger up ... I'm trying to think of bad trailers that turned into good movies, but I'm struggling - does anyone have any examples they can think of?

[bassman]

A fan edit of the trailer that is much better, IMO. It removes the jokes that don't fit too well with the GB style of witty humor and also replaces that dubstep version of theme song. :lol:

8IDXpOX0Cp0

[MinionZombie]

A fan edit of the trailer that is much better, IMO. It removes the jokes that don't fit too well with the GB style of witty humor and also replaces that dubstep version of theme song. :lol:

8IDXpOX0Cp0

This raises a few points.

In many ways, particularly with Ghostbusters, there's certains things that the established fanbase - as far and wide and as varied as it is, the very thing that has enabled this remake/whatever-the-hell-it's-supposed-to-be to exist in the first - want from a GB movie. This fan edit bringing back the original theme speaks to that.

But in many ways that can be as much a help as a hindrance on a project such as this. The references could easily frustrate as much as they could entertain, indeed if you include too many then you weigh this film down under the crushing weight of what came before (and inspired a fanbase for thirty years). This further makes me question why on earth you would really want to go down the "GB1&2 aren't cannon" route - which seems to be the case, but frankly who the hell knows at this point, does Sony even know? :p

Seriously though, if GB1&2 had been included as cannon, you'd save face with the fans and I think that 'franchising' story idea would have made for a more interesting choice - perhaps in the face of dwindling paranormal activity. Almost like the people are starting to wonder whether it all really happened or not (there's almost a hint of that in this trailer, in fact) - it would also mean you could have references to the movies everyone loves in a way that would flow more naturally, rather than just being tossed in.

Thrown in references can sometimes work, but they can all-too-easily come off as crunched gears.

But Hollywood can never leave anything alone now, can they? For example, the "Suspiria" remake is apparently still going ahead - which just makes no creative sense whatsoever ... but that's another thread entirely. :eek:

Back to nu-GB, I'm wondering if they'll try and cut down some of the jokes in the movie - the ones that have kind of landed like clangers around the web - to try and reduce the more face-palm-inducing self-aware '21st century comedy' stuff.

[EvilNed]

All I'm saying is the implementation and P.R. for it on this project has been exceedingly clumsy. That and other things make it look like they don't really know what they're doing with this movie in general, or are struggling to get all their ideas lined up - and that worries me.

To be honest, all I see is a trailer. There's nothing really female or politically correct about it. The clumsy part, I'd say, is the insecure white rage that gets thrown at it - which is an ugly mirror for us as a society to stare into.

[MinionZombie]

Pm0m3Xnqov4

The "International Trailer" with a few bits of new footage ... ... the gags are still pretty naff. I did chuckle at the last one, but other than that they still have that cloyingly 2010's thing of halting everything to be make sure everybody knows you're being self-aware, which always feels a bit forced to me. I'd hope most of the jokes aren't like that, but at this rate... :shifty:

[bassman]

Ugh.....more "modern" jokes. This trailer also has certain scenes confirming a spoiler-filled test screening review that's out there. And believe me....this review makes this film seem like recent Adam Sandler movies.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, the crowd surfing gag was nothing but predictable, and the follow up felt clumsy and blunt and not particularly clever/well written as a joke either. It just kind of crashed with a thud.

Self awareness can work very well - but it has to be backed up by good writing, and work in the context ... there does seem to be a worrying trend towards that 'halt everything, break the fourth wall without literally breaking it' thing that I mentioned in previous posts. Here it just seems a bit awkward and it doesn't feel like it really fits in with Ghostbusters, if that makes sense? It doesn't seem like the right approach.

I'm wondering if the 'Feig approach' is really the right one for this franchise. It worked brilliantly for Bridesmaids, and I've heard good things about Spy ... but those were built from the ground up by Feig and the performers. Trying to fit their style into Ghostbusters feels a bit 'square peg/round hole'...

*worried look* :|

[MinionZombie]

L5YUUVKfVh4

A third trailer has been released ... and the jokes are still the same style of shit in the previous two. *sigh* :(

[Neil]

^^ Am I picking up you may not be entirely into this flick? (so far) :)

[MinionZombie]

^^ Am I picking up you may not be entirely into this flick? (so far) :)

It's the jokes, Neil ... they're terrible ... predictable in the extreme, and with no real intelligence to them at all. I half-expect to see Paul Blart: Mall Cop swing by for a cameo! Even the ghost effects, which I kinda liked at first, are now not sitting right with me.

Plus, the fact that it's a remake is a giant mark against it. No matter what they're calling it to try and avoid using the dread "remake" word - it's a remake. It just is.

Oof ... it does not look good, yeesh.

http://65.media.tumblr.com/1ffbf02a103d1df26518bfafc96591a1/tumblr_inline_nwaineuG4G1t8my73_500.jpg

...

Screen Junkies have a chat about it:

qF0zKbIT2mw

[EvilNed]

I've said my piece about it. People are acting to harshly towards it. I think it looks pretty good compared to everything else that gets pushed these days.

[bassman]

The second international trailer is an improvement on the three before it, but I'm still not holding out much hope. Basically I've come to terms with it. This film exists, it could be crap, okay, or the extremely small chance that it's great, but either way the originals will still be there. I'm not necessarily happy about it, but I'm also not going to get all bent out of shape about it like some fans across the net.

I do get a nice warm and fuzzy feeling to see my daughters' reactions and excitement for this film. They've grown to love the original films and cartoon because of my fandom and to them, Feig's film looks like a home run. I see it something like the new TMNT films: they're not very good films at all, just goofy entertainment and the kids love the spectical of it all. In the end, they'll have both versions of GB to enjoy. And I can very proudly say that they can quote the original films by heart! :lol:

[EvilNed]

I don't think there's any chance of it being great... But I do think there's a good chance of it being a decent Melissa McCarthy vehicle.

[MinionZombie]

Bassman - well, good to hear your daughter's got good taste RE: original GBs and the cartoon. :)

There was a comment made somewhere online, I've forgotten where now, but that this one looks like it's been filmed as a comedy - whereas the originals were filmed as a sort of horror/ghost thriller that just so happened to be funny. I think there's a clear distinction there. Also, my worries come down to the style of comedy - in the originals its very smart, and at times really quite subtle and layered ... in this new one? Going on the trailers it's just that awfully blunt 21st century "stop everything and look at the joke!" style comedy. That style can work, but smashing it into Ghostbusters feels like a square peg slamming into a round hole, two clashing styles. Almost like throwing explicit sex into a romcom. It just doesn't look good.

To me at least, Ghostbusters is a franchise that's capable of far better humour than yet another Exorcist reference that's no different or better than previous spoofs over the last 40 years and screaming really loud while stopping everything to say "hey! this is the joke! look at it! look at it! oh, we're so funny, aren't we?"

It's like if you took the cast and makers of Airplane, and shoved them into a remake of Swingers - two totally different styles that are great in and on their own terms, but that just don't mix.

When I eventually see it, because I will (but not in the cinema, as I so rarely go these days), it could end up having some good points, that's entirely possible, but if the trailers are representative of what the film is ... oh dear, as Neil is known to say. :(

[bassman]

I totally agree on the style of comedy. But the funny thing is, I get the feeling that even if the original cast had returned as their original characters, those characters would be the only ones with the classic style of comedy and everything else would've been more modern. Times have changed and unfortunately the general audoences' acceptance of that old style of comedy would very likely hurt the film. It was inevitable, regardless of a continuation or remake, that the style of comedy wouldn't match the originals 100%. It's a shame, but it's a reality if you look at the majority of successful comedies today.

[MinionZombie]

I totally agree on the style of comedy. But the funny thing is, I get the feeling that even if the original cast had returned as their original characters, those characters would be the only ones with the classic style of comedy and everything else would've been more modern. Times have changed and unfortunately the general audoences' acceptance of that old style of comedy would very likely hurt the film. It was inevitable, regardless of a continuation or remake, that the style of comedy wouldn't match the originals 100%. It's a shame, but it's a reality if you look at the majority of successful comedies today.

Hmmm ... well, it's only a type of comedy that happens to be popular, this whole 'Apatow style'. The telling of the jokes in Ghostbusters might change slightly compared to the 21st century, but ostensibly the jokes still work, and that style of comedy would still work. The 'Apatow style' is often hilarious and there's been some great movies, but they've also got their fair share of problems - they're often overlong (Apatow's films in particular are ill disciplined to say the least when it comes to running times - the four act structure of the exceptionally overlong Funny People, for example), and the moments where you can tell that two or three cameras have been set up just so the actors can riff are painfully obvious (and, at times, indulgent - so we sit through several joke choices that have all made the final cut), and indeed visually speaking these films tend not to be that great. The visual aspect of comedy is missing from most of these 'Apatow style' comedy films.

However, not all American comedy has gone fully that way. The Jump Street flicks have some of that 'Apatow riffing' to them, but they also play visually strong and strive to be smart with the story, the characters, the situation, and the formula of the whole thing. I'm a big fan of MacGruber, too.

Now, compare that 'Apatow style' to the films of Edgar Wright - hilarious and visually arresting, where the jokes can be played as visual, but are also very smart and exceedingly well structured throughout the entire movie with setups, payoffs, and reversals placed very specifically from start to finish. It's a modern style of comedy, but it's also decidedly smart and decidedly funny.

I'm wondering if Feig's GB is going to focus much more on the situation rather than the characters. There was a lot of gold in the originals that was based purely on the characters who happened to be in this extraordinary situation, whereas it seems as if in this new one there's a lot of 'comedy from the situation' being used instead ... and the jokes we've seen thus far are terribly blunt/obvious in how they're going to play out (e.g. the stage dive moment). Moments like that feel terribly Blart-like.

[shootemindehead]

It's like if you took the cast and makers of Airplane, and shoved them into a remake of Swingers - two totally different styles that are great in and on their own terms, but that just don't mix.

You see this is the heart of the problem. It's been given to the wrong people. Feig has a particular schtick that worked with 'Bridesmaids', but I don't see it working here.


When I eventually see it, because I will (but not in the cinema, as I so rarely go these days), it could end up having some good points, that's entirely possible, but if the trailers are representative of what the film is ... oh dear, as Neil is known to say. :(

I might DL it, if I have absolutely nothing else to watch, or am just curious. But from the trailers I've seen, this thing is going to be wretched.

I'm relatively hard to please at the best of times and I don't think Nu-Ghostbusters is going to do it. I'm not even that big a fan of the original. It was a decent, entertaining, film and I remember the Christmas of 'Ghostbusters' and 'Gremlins' very well. But I am constantly surprised at the fondness with which some people look back upon it. But I do understand, completely, why some fans of the original are up in arms about this new thing. They wanted 'Ghostbusters 3' and got this.

[bassman]

Ray Parker Jr created the original iconic theme song, Run DMC put the 80's rap spin on it for GBII, now they've hired Fall Out Boy and Missy Elliot to recreate the song for Feig's film.

While I am not a fan of either of those, I always knew they'd get some new and popular artist to cover the song for a new generation. Having said that...ARE they popular anymore?? I'm not up to date with current trendy groups, but I haven't heard of FOB's fame in close to ten years, and the last singIe remember from Elliot was that "it's my window and I can't stand the rain" song that was popular probably 15 years back?? I thought they'd get a singer/group that's actually popular at the moment. I dunno, it just seemed strange to me...

[MinionZombie]

Speaking of Feig, I watched "Spy" the other day - now that I rather enjoyed (even if there were a few parts littered around where scenes went on too long, or needed to be cut differently - e.g. the pre-credits moment where she fires the gardener just didn't work and fell pretty flat after a rather good scene in the restaurant, and yes, some rather obvious jokes you knew the punchline to before they concluded - physical comedy bits, mostly - and a lot of swearing tossed in).

However, "Spy" is a new I.P. created by Feig himself in his own mould. Anyone else trying to do it wouldn't work.

My biggest concern with his GB film is the square peg/round hole thing. Feig's brand of comedy just doesn't fit what Ghostbusters is. :confused:

[shootemindehead]

You're just a big fat sexist Mini.

THERE.....I SAID IT!!!!!!

[MinionZombie]

You're just a big fat sexist Mini.

THERE.....I SAID IT!!!!!!

:lol::lol::lol:

[Trancelikestate]

I admit that I'm one of the fans that's pretty upset about it. I've had late night drunken rants and deleted people (who I didn't really know anyway they just added me because I'm a fan). It's things like threatening Bill Murray legally if he did not cooperate and completely cutting Reitman out. Shamelessly slapping the GB logo on something to sell it and watching others just lap it up. It's pathetic. I am happy when I go into Walmart and see only the original guys figures for sale and no reboot figures. I admit seeing them on the shelf again makes me happy deep down. I was born in 83 so GB was wildly popular when I was little. Consequently my parents are somewhat familiar with it. I enjoy listening to my fathers opinions on the reboot. One day he got pretty worked up over a gag in the first trailer. The bit where she's walking by all the wigs until she comes across Holtzman pretending to be one. "They did that shit in Looney Tunes. They're stealing Looney Tunes jokes? That's fucking pathetic." Haha, oh my dad.

Basically I see any adult supporters as sheep or mentally incompetent. I know that's wrong and very Trump of me. Recently Apatow said he believe the people who hate this film are all Trump supporters. I can tell you 100% I despise Trump but ironically I see supportes of this movie as delusional as Trump supporters though they're two completely different types of people.

[bassman]

I actually thought the wig/hat joke from that first trailer was the best joke and closest to the original films style of comedy....

By the way, there have been multiple screenings of the movie so far and if anyone wants to know whether or not it's connected to the originals, you can have your answer:

The answer is maybe. :lol: There's no mention of the original team or events throughout the movie, but the new team moves into the original firehouse at the end and the final scene is of the new team finding an old tape reel(seen in the trailers) and hearing a voice say Zuul. Cue credits.

So there might be a connection, but no dialogue to make it certain and the cameos are definitely different characters that never mention anything about the original.

From what I've been reading, it's rumored that Ivan Reitman insisted that the new team move to the firehouse by the end of the movie and find this tape reel. Perhaps he has a plan to connect things through Ghost Corps?

[shootemindehead]

Recently Apatow said he believe the people who hate this film are all Trump supporters.

This really has to be the dumbest fucking thing I've heard connected with this stupid film. :rolleyes:

[MinionZombie]

This really has to be the dumbest fucking thing I've heard connected with this stupid film. :rolleyes:

Innit just!

I don't "hate" this film - I can't yet as I've not seen it (and who knows what my thoughts on it will be when I eventually do see it), so my opinion at this point in time is entirely based on the trailers and what I've read about it, and my opinion at this point in time is one of grave doubt about it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - square peg, round hole.

BTW - I can't stand Trump - which is British for "fart", too.

The people slagging it off literally just because there's women in it (and nothing else) are undoubtedly out there, and their argument (or lack thereof) is as asinine as the likes of Apatow et al tarring anyone who has strong doubts about the flick (that are reasoned and wide-ranging) as "sexist/misogynist". Two idiotic extremes.

...

As for what bassman wrote in his spoiler tags ... well, there goes a chance that the movie had to include something good. With that ending it sounds kinda awkward.

THEORY:
Perhaps there'll be some sort of 'alternate universe' thing inserted into it? The tape reel having been sent from another dimension - by the O.G. 'busters - to warn another dimension of the coming of Zuul?

That might work as an idea.

[bassman]

^ I was thinking the same thing regarding your theory. Just looking at the trailers it's obvious that this film involves time travel and parallel dimensions. Or maybe it's just a really big wink at the fans and a cliffhanger for a potential sequel? It just seems so vague. They needed to make a definite decision whether it's connected or not, but they clearly chose to leave it as a wink at the audience so they could have the best of both worlds.

Of course, there's also the possibility that there are scenes left out of these screenings. Much like Marvel never attaches their credit stingers until the general audience release date...

- - - Updated - - -

Featurette on the Ecto-1 with some new scenes. You can also hear the cover of the GB theme about half way through.

fuY8eKf7lhU

Even though the original car is obviously superior and a classic, I gotta say this one has grown on me after seeing it in action. Fans will also notice the car in front of the NY Public Library, which is a nice little wink...

[Trancelikestate]

This happens to be one of my favorite articles (http://careymartell.com/2016/03/facebook-audience-insights-showed-ghostbusters-reboot-bad-idea/?utm_content=buffer182e7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer) on the matter and is the most logical assessment in my opinion. Really doesn't look good for this movie financially.

[Neil]

Well Dan Aykroyd likes it - http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1517919/Dan-Aykroyd-Has-Seen-Ghostbusters-He-Has-Some-Strong-Opinions


As originator of the original: Saw test screening of new movie. Apart from brilliant, genuine performances from the cast both female and male, it has more laughs and more scares than the first 2 films plus Bill Murray is in it! As one of millions of man-fans and Ray Stantz, I'm paying to see that and bringing all my friends!

[MinionZombie]

Well Dan Aykroyd likes it - http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1517919/Dan-Aykroyd-Has-Seen-Ghostbusters-He-Has-Some-Strong-Opinions

And James Cameron bigged up Terminator Genysis before it was released, too. :p

[EvilNed]

Well Dan Aykroyd likes it - http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1517919/Dan-Aykroyd-Has-Seen-Ghostbusters-He-Has-Some-Strong-Opinions

Dude, I bet he's paid to say that...

[Neil]

And James Cameron bigged up Terminator Genysis before it was released, too. :p
Still not seen it... Or the Bale one either!

[Trancelikestate]

Not only are they paid to say it, they will be pursued legally if they don't say it.

How many other reboots have piggybacked off the original as bad as this one? You never saw Arnold at any Total Recall screenings or Peter Weller or the director of the original Robocop endorsing the reboot. This is blatant unoriginal hot garbage riding off the name only.

And if I needed another reason to hate it, now progressive is doing adds with Flo as a ghostbuster.

[Trancelikestate]

A couple recent noteworthy developments, Reitman says he thinks the reason it's so hated is because of nostalgia, not sexism. He also said in a video blog that he would not remake any 80's movie. Perhaps Sony did something to irritate him.

Also in one of the latest tv spots Slimer has a girlfriend, Slimette. Not really worth discussing just more garbage on the pile.

Back when this thread began I stated in post #7 that boys would not buy toys from this movie. Turns out, I was right (https://familyfriendlydaddyblog.com/2016/07/01/ghostbusters-reboot-movie-toys-boys-arent-buying-them/). They are on clearance before the movie is even out and my Walmart never even got them. I'm loving watching this train wreck.

[Neil]

Back when this thread began I stated in post #7 that boys would not buy toys from this movie. Turns out, I was right (https://familyfriendlydaddyblog.com/2016/07/01/ghostbusters-reboot-movie-toys-boys-arent-buying-them/). They are on clearance before the movie is even out and my Walmart never even got them. I'm loving watching this train wreck.

Hey! Nice call!

You get 2.6 HPotD points for that!

[MinionZombie]

Interesting to also note how much merchandise related to the 1984 original is being pushed now, too - I imagine that'll sell quite well.

Really, there's just some movies that shouldn't be remade - Back to the Future, for example (and hopefully it never will be) - and Ghostbusters is very much a movie that should never be remade in my opinion. As I've said before, Ghostbusters 1984 is my Star Wars.

I'd wager that Feig's film, ultimately, will be met with a shrug of shoulders. What do you folks think? How do you think it'll be received by the general audience?

[bassman]

Really, there's just some movies that shouldn't be remade - Back to the Future, for example

I have heard Zemeckis say that he, Bob Gale, and Spielberg own the rights to any and all installments to the franchise and that it'd be remade "over his dead body". I believe he also mentioned that the rights will go to his children when he dies and he's urged them to not let it happen.



What do you folks think? How do you think it'll be received by the general audience?

I think it'll do well financially, mainly just because of the name and it's place in the public's consciousness, but will get bad to mediocre critical reviews. General audience reviews will likely be high.

Personally, I hope it does well financially so that the franchise/brand can continue and branch off into other films.

[shootemindehead]

I think shit like this needs to be burned frankly. I'm always against the idea of "name rape" films. They poison the well of great originals and they destroy franchises. Yes, I know I haven't seen it yet, but they've had four trailers out and they are all appalling, so I won't be seeing it (until I perhaps download it for mere curiosities sake), because if there isn't enough good material in a 90 min film to make at least one good trailer after four attempts, then that probably means the film is rubbish.

I'm all for remakes that are done well, with good intentions, like 1979's 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' or the 1950's 'Ben-Hur' (which is being remade) :rolleyes: . Or even rejigged foreign films like 'Seven Samurai' -> 'The Magnificent Seven' (which is also being remade) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: . But I absolutely hate cash in's, which is what this is. pure and simple.

I hope it bombs spectacularly, but it'll probably do ok, because most people going will be curious. It would be nice though if people didn't go to see crap simply out of curiosity, because that only sends a wrong message to Hollywood that their crap product does well, because bums are still on seats.

Nothing surprises me though. I live in a world where 'The Fast and the Furious' or 'Transformers' are multi-million dollar franchises and 'Dredd' bombs at the BO.

SMH.

[bassman]

I've just seen on deadline that they're predicting a weekend opening of 35-41 million and "The Secret Life of Pets" is expected to do similar numbers. With a budget around 150 million and Star Trek Beyond opening the following week....those numbers aren't in Feig and company's favor....

[MinionZombie]

f0-pPaxui6Y

IGN Review - 6.9/10 "Okay" - which in IGN-speak, is more like a 5/10.

IGN aren't known for movie reviews, it has to be said, particularly as they're a gaming site, but the essentials of their review is this:

1) It has a lot of baggage following it (e.g. the negative public reaction)
2) An overlong-feeling 116 minutes (interesting when compared to the solid pacing of GB1 = 105mins, and GB2 = 108mins). Not surprised though, with Feig being part of the Apatow era, which seems to think that comedies need to be two hours long (or more, if you're Apatow).
3) Good chemistry between McCarthy and Wiig.
4) Leslie Jones shouts all her jokes, apparently. I could see this getting quite tiring.
5) Serviceable plot, but can't really decide on a tone.
6) Feig's style doesn't seem to fit very well ... ... I was wondering about this myself, the "square peg, round hole" thing.
7) Big sections without any real gags in them.
8) They seem to like Hemsworth's idiot secretary.

[bassman]

The review embargo was lifted today. Of all the reviews out thus far, I keep seeing that apparently Feig and Sony didn't even know if this was supposed to be a remake or continuation. The finished film feels confusing and never makes it clear. I've also read that the references to the original film actually take the viewer out of the new film's plot. Every time the viewer starts to get the slightest bit invested into the plot and flow of the new film, it all comes to a screeching halt so that they can force in a "hey, remember the original classic film?!?" moment.

Based on the reviews we've seen so far, this film will only be "okay" and forgotten about within six months time....

[Trancelikestate]

Out today in the UK. Anyone happen to get to a free showing? Cause if you paid to see this we'll crucify you. J/k. Chicago Sun Times calls it a "Horrifying Mess" (http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/). Top Critic's score on RT is 50%. 3.7 on IMDB. I'm really loving watching this train wreck in slow motion. Still, there's people out there who are all about it. WTF happened to them in their lives? A lot of speculation about corrupt reviews and reviewers too scared to tell the truth for fear of being labeled a misogynist. I watched a short clip of the climax scene on youtube and I gotta say I don't know if I'd make it all the way through. Also sounds like they did scrap Weavers' scene after all.

[Neil]

Also sounds like they did scrap Weavers' scene after all.
Maybe it showed the rest of them up too much :)

[Trancelikestate]

A fan are you? :p

[Neil]

A fan are you? :p

Sigourney Weaver's done some good stuff over the years - From Aliens to Working Girl :)

[MinionZombie]

A Monday release? For a 'big' movie such as this? :rockbrow: Hmmm...

Regarding that IMDb rating ... well, it's open to fiddling of course, much like the infamous trailer that received so much scorn - but I do wonder if this movie is to some degree being made an example of; a cry from an audience fatigued with sub-par remakes and cash-ins and Hollywood doing their damnedest to suck the life out of known titles in general.

That Chicago Sun Times review was pretty damning ... ouch! :stunned: Although, I objected to that review slagging off the 1984 film's special effects. While some of them look a bit rough today, they were cutting edge at the time, and many of the effects still work well. At the time, too, Ghostbusters was an unusual film - a comedy that was filled with major special effects and action scenes. Par for the course now, but then? Not so much.

Thinking of the style of comedy too - the square peg/round hole thing ... I think of the elevator scene ("untested nuclear accelerators") in the original, versus that stage dive moment in the trailer for this remake. I know that's only two small pieces of each respective film ... but the difference is stark.

As for 'ruining your childhood' ... well, to be honest, when there's a duff remake made of an excellent film, the stink of the new (duff) movie clings on to the original (good) one. "The Fog", for instance - superb original, horrible remake. Fortunately, in that case, the remake is almost entirely forgotten about - but it's still there - it's a derogatory footnote. But then also look at "The Thing" - John Carpenter's superb re-telling of the original source text, versus that dunderheaded smash-em-up 'pre-boot' flick from 2011 (so lazy it has the exact same title!!!) - JC's will continue to be a milestone in horror cinema, but it will now always have that unfortunate 2011 footnote attached to it like an infected skintag.

[shootemindehead]

Sigourney Weaver's done some good stuff over the years - From Aliens to Working Girl :)

I think her best role was in 'Annie Hall' though. :lol:

[Trancelikestate]

Yeah, I heard her scene was cut while (get this Bassman) Bob from Bob's prop shop has a brief cameo. Talk about a big F U to the fans in every. single. way.

Edit: Apparently she is in it.

[bassman]

Just a movie, man. Just a movie.

[MinionZombie]

Feig on the post-credits sting scene (spoilers, of course):

Cw78ZT9-EUQ

Again, kinda sounds like they don't really know what they want. :rockbrow:

[wayzim]

Sigourney Weaver's done some good stuff over the years - From Aliens to Working Girl :)

And Sigourney will be getting her Brit on in A Monster Calls, with Liam Neeson as the voice of the monster.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PICsytXE-mA

[MinionZombie]

Mark Kermode's review:

Ru0CTCScVkA

"I wanted it to be more than fine ... it's okay."

On Hemsworth's 'beefcake secretary' role reversal: "A good gag ... played well." - Although, I have to say, 'role reversal'? Yeah, when compared to other movies, but Annie Potts' Janine was a tough New York woman: forthright, sarcastic, took no shit from anyone, commanded the respect of her peers/superiors while 'just' being their secretary (so the perception would be, I'm not "secretary shaming" :rolleyes: ). So, in terms of Ghostbusters specifically, you could argue that Hemsworth's 'himbo' is a regressive step within the franchise.

There's a clip in this review, too. Sure, it's only a clip, but yeesh ... I just cringed. :( Am I getting fed up with this 'Apatow-esque' style of humour? I watched Feig's "Spy" the other week and really quite enjoyed it. I think it just comes down to Ghostbusters being my Star Wars, and the Feig/Apatow world of comedy being the square peg to proper Ghostbusters' round hole ... ooh err!

On the structure - "messy, scrappy ... structurally shambolic" ... he does mention some 'time shift' back to the glory days of Times Square, which does sound very interesting to me, though.

"Smiling and chortling, but not laughing out loud". He does say it's "easy to like", but unfortunately he amplifies all the trolling nonsense and completely ignores the legitimate and well argued fear and 'fanger' (fan anger) that GB fans had/have leading up to it (something which Feig has acknowledged on numerous occasions, to his credit).

So ultimately Kermode generally liked it, but it fell quite far below the required line, and has some particular problems.

[shootemindehead]

You see this is a problem for me. I like the "good doctor" and agree with a lot of his reviews, but I really dislike the idea that this film gets a pass because it might be one in the eye for red pill twats on the interwebs.

That's just absurd to me.

I come from an angle where I think the original in stupidly overrated by some (my sincerest apologies to Mini and Bassy :moon: ). It's a chucklesome film, at best, that you can watch any time when it's on. It's a great example of a film where everything just worked, almost in spite of itself. But the key factor is that it works. It's not forced, it's not ticking boxes. It just works as a good time film. It's almost the perfect beer and pizza film!

This thing is built on all the wrong foundations though. It's a cash in on a famous name. It's helmed by a troupe that's famous for a different find of comedy (I liked 'Bridesmaids' BTW), it looks like a tick-the-box effort and it stinks of Sony in search of a franchise in which it can rake in the shillings.

To me, that automatically puts me in the "I don't want to see" bag, like I was with 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', 'Total Recall', 'Robocop' and a million other different cash ins. Well, that and the four piss poor trailers that I saw.

It has been amazing though to witness the internet meltdown over this nonsense though. Some people have said the most remarkable things on either side, whilst the middle ground has been all but ignored, to a very large degree.

Oh internet! Tsk.

[MinionZombie]

IGN Review of the new Ghostbusters game:

2HO8XLt5DTs

4.4/10 "Bad" ... so don't bother if you're thinking of hopping on that (I wasn't even aware it existed until five minutes ago).

...


You see this is a problem for me. I like the "good doctor" and agree with a lot of his reviews, but I really dislike the idea that this film gets a pass because it might be one in the eye for red pill twats on the interwebs.

That's just absurd to me.

I come from an angle where I think the original in stupidly overrated by some (my sincerest apologies to Mini and Bassy :moon: ). It's a chucklesome film, at best, that you can watch any time when it's on. It's a great example of a film where everything just worked, almost in spite of itself. But the key factor is that it works. It's not forced, it's not ticking boxes. It just works as a good time film. It's almost the perfect beer and pizza film!

This thing is built on all the wrong foundations though. It's a cash in on a famous name. It's helmed by a troupe that's famous for a different find of comedy (I liked 'Bridesmaids' BTW), it looks like a tick-the-box effort and it stinks of Sony in search of a franchise in which it can rake in the shillings.

To me, that automatically puts me in the "I don't want to see" bag, like I was with 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', 'Total Recall', 'Robocop' and a million other different cash ins. Well, that and the four piss poor trailers that I saw.

It has been amazing though to witness the internet meltdown over this nonsense though. Some people have said the most remarkable things on either side, whilst the middle ground has been all but ignored, to a very large degree.

Oh internet! Tsk.

1) I'm likewise on Kermode. A lot of the time I agree with his assessments, and he's my favourite film critic, but his argument here felt beneath his usual standard of rigour. Oftentimes he rails against pointless reboots, and completely ignoring all the legitimate criticism that was being aimed at the film (which, I would say, would likely be the majority of the negativity aimed at it). Was there a concerted effort on the part of online arseholes? Undoubtedly, the evidence is right there, but I think the scale of it has been overestimated simply because it was the criticism that was shouted the loudest and paid the most attention.

2) "Stupidly overrated"?!?!?! *head explodes* :lol::lol::lol:

Each to their own, shoot, fair enough ... ... just watch your back when the bell rings and we're all in the HPOTD playground at lunch! :p

3) I agree with you on the "foundations" of this remake. Much like most remakes, it's shaky ground to build on - and when I keep hearing/reading about it having a shoddy structure and not knowing what tone to strike, it seems like Sony and Feig didn't really know what they wanted. Even seeing Feig talk about the coda scene it sounded like none of them really knew what they wanted it to be - choose for goodness sake! It's like the BBC's recent attempt at 'rebooting' Top Gear - they rushed into it and didn't know what they wanted to do (perhaps now that they've shafted Evans out of the way, and have cancelled the Xmas special in order to take some long overdue time to think about the format, they might come up with something better than the audience-hemorrhaging six episodes that recently aired).

4) I like the TCM remake - but it's nowhere near the same league as the original, not at all, and yes, it is a bit of a cynical exercise in itself. I re-watched it recently, having seen it a few times during the 2010s, and it's certainly fallen to a degree in my estimation. I don't think it'll really linger in minds that much as more time passes, but will retain a low level of remembrance.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 - oh yes, indeed, that was the epitome of an atrocious remake. There was a good idea within it (seeing the origin story of Freddy Kruger, and reasserting his nasty backstory in place of all that goofy shit they made him do in later sequels), but it was just horrific. A hollow cobbling-together of a bunch of disparate scenes copied from the original, but with none of what made the original so good. The metaphor for the whole thing was that famous shot of Kruger bulging out from the wall above Nancy - a cheap bit of spandex and Englund pressing himself against it in the original, tens of thousands of dollars worth of obvious-looking CGI in the remake that looked fake-as-fook.

Total Recall - again, yes, what a load of crap that was! Blimey! Entirely forgettable. A hodge-podge mess. It was like someone spilled a pint of CGI on the floor. A total bugger up.

RoboCop - yep, while not as bad as Total Recall, it tried to do far too many things and lost focus completely the longer the movie went on. It was pure cash-in with a couple of good ideas up front that were cast aside for, yep, more naff CGI and dodgy physics.

5) Oh, the middle ground ... it seems like this world is pushing further and further to the extremes while the majority in the middle are left saying "WTF?!" From Trump to Twitter, it's a sorry mess.

[bassman]

My thoughts on Ghostbusters(2016). No spoilers

So I'll start by saying the long road to actually seeing this film was a bit of an emotional roller coaster for me. Like MZ or Trance, GB has always been "my Star Wars". It's been a part of my life for as long as I can remember, so when this reboot was initially announced, I wanted to murder someone. How f*cking DARE they even think of remaking this?? :lol: Then of course I remembered I wasn't a two year old, its a lucrative franchise so it was inevitable, and it wouldn't effect the original in any way. So I just rolled with it. There were quite a few things that didn't look right, but I'd give it a chance on it's own terms.

So give it a chance I did....and it's good! I came away having really enjoyed those two hours in the cinema! It wasn't perfect, many things probably should've been handled differently, but at the end of the day I laughed many times and really enjoyed it. I don't expect a masterpiece every time I sit in a theater, I just want to be entertained and this accomplished it quite well. Somewhere around the second act I actually thought to myself "wtf, I'm really enjoying this!?!"

One thing to most certainly note: they totally screwed the pooch with the trailers. I don't feel like any of the trailers correctly represented the tone of this remake.

The references to the original go a bit overboard, but they're still fun to see. At least on this initial viewing. Without spoilers, the cameos are a bit hefty, but theyre spread out at a pretty decent pace. Theres even a Harold Ramis cameo in a sense and that brought a huge smile to my face! There are still those odd references as to whether or not it could somehow be connected to the originals, but I'm definitely leaning toward it not being connected. It also seems to do a bit of toying with the title, using the "answer the call" bit at the end. Do I sense a "A New Hope" style name change to make room for potential sequels and branches?

Anyway, I could go on for ages. Bottom line: try to step off the hate train, try to enjoy it on it's own terms, it was never going to match the original or affect the original in any way. Your childhood remains intact, I promise you.

If this is indeed the beginning of Reitman's Ghost Corp productions and a potential huge franchise, I'm excited about the future.

[MinionZombie]

One thing to most certainly note: they totally screwed the pooch with the trailers. I don't feel like any of the trailers correctly represented the tone of this remake.

Interesting.

Makes you wonder why the movie biz doesn't just tell the trailer editors to sort their shit out, and most importantly of all, listen to the flippin' director of the movie ... and stop with that shit of giving away the whole movie, while I think of it. :p

...

As for the film itself. I'll see it ... eventually. I just have absolutely zero excitement for it. The trailers have indeed been awful.

[bassman]

Interesting.

Makes you wonder why the movie biz doesn't just tell the trailer editors to sort their shit out, and most importantly of all, listen to the flippin' director of the movie ... and stop with that shit of giving away the whole movie, while I think of it. :p

...

As for the film itself. I'll see it ... eventually. I just have absolutely zero excitement for it. The trailers have indeed been awful.

I think in this particular case, the issue with the trailers may have a bit to do with Feig's improv directing style. As you've said before, he's from that sort of Apatow generation where the actors riff on the same scene for many, many takes. Feig has said his initial assembly cut of the film was 4.5 hours because of this!

So I think the marketing folk are given TONS of material and try to make the best of it. Certain jokes from the trailers land much better within the context of the film, while certain jokes are completely absent.

As has been said in most reviews, it's the first two acts of this film that really work, but it stumbles into generic blockbuster action in the third. I've always been puzzled how certain audiences see the original characters as sort of action or almost superheroes. That never seemed right to me, but with this film, these new gb's most definitely turn into action stars in the final battle.

Anyway, the first two acts actually do feel like a relative to Reitman's films. Right at the opening scene it felt like it could have been a sister or cousin to the original. Good opening scare that builds up into the Ghostbusters theme just like the original. This is pretty well maintained through the gathering of the team, the first sightings across the city, building the equipment, first catch, etc. It's around the beginning of the third act where the main villain really comes out to shine, he's a bit of a weak villain honestly, and then we go into your basic explosions and spectacle of the summer blockbusters. Still some good laughs peppered in there though.

I'm actually anxious to see it again to see how it sits after a second viewing....

[MinionZombie]

As has been said in most reviews, it's the first two acts of this film that really work, but it stumbles into generic blockbuster action in the third. I've always been puzzled how certain audiences see the original characters as sort of action or almost superheroes. That never seemed right to me, but with this film, these new gb's most definitely turn into action stars in the final battle.

Anyway, the first two acts actually do feel like a relative to Reitman's films. Right at the opening scene it felt like it could have been a sister or cousin to the original. Good opening scare that builds up into the Ghostbusters theme just like the original. This is pretty well maintained through the gathering of the team, the first sightings across the city, building the equipment, first catch, etc. It's around the beginning of the third act where the main villain really comes out to shine, he's a bit of a weak villain honestly, and then we go into your basic explosions and spectacle of the summer blockbusters. Still some good laughs peppered in there though.

Superheroes? The original guys? :lol: Some folks out there have a strange sense of the original movie, evidently! :p To me, they've always been what they are - academics who are in over their heads. You see how exhausted they are by the physical exertion at times, and how they're kinda skittish to begin with until they get into the groove, but they're academics and scientists through and through, plus Ernie Hudson's jobbing ghostbuster. Just look at the scene where they have to climb the stairs in the finale - they're shattered, just like any other Everyday Joe would be.

I think, ultimately, the new Ghostbusters flick I was wanting would have been a 'passing of the torch' film that included the first two as cannon. Imagine that concept under the writer/director team of Lord & Miller (21 Jump Street, The Lego Movie - and now the upcoming Han Solo film), for example. That was the sort of movie I was wanting - but evidently I'll never get that - what we've got instead is a remake. :(

I watched a Sky Cinema special on it last night. The ladies were all funny in the roundtable discussion, and I'm a big fan of Wiig in particular, but ... again, the clips they showed, for the most part, either grated on me or disappointed me. Perhaps I feel as if the 'Apatow style' of comedy is not the right fit for Ghostbusters.

I'm interested to see it, but I'll not be seeing it in the cinema (then again, I go so rarely these days).

[bassman]

The film opened in second place behind The secret life of Pets with 46 million. Obviously not Marvel or Star Wars numbers, but not bad for the type of film they made. I have a feeling it'll drop quickly in the coming weekends, especially with the new Trek opening next.

After only one weekend, Sony has confirmed that they're moving forward with other films. Whether this is a direct sequel to this remake, the announced CG film, the Pratt/Tatuum film, or a continuation of the original films, perhaps even a few of the above, remains to be seen. Reitman's new company was created with the intention of branching GB out into many different facets, but announcing that they're moving forward after only one weekend seems a bit premature...

[shootemindehead]

With China saying no, it's a big dent in Sony's expected profits. So, I can't see this thing doing at all well, money wise. It might make a bit of a profit, but profit enough for a direct sequel? Mmmm. Plus, with all the nonsense surrounding this fiasco, would anyone really want to go around that track again? I can't really see that happening to easily.

In the end I think that'll be a good thing for folk who want this reboot/sequel cycle to end, or at least be toned down a bit.

Frankly, this is a film that shouldn't have been made, or at least not made by the people who were given the IP. The best result here is that nu-Ghostbusters gets put in the same box as the other remake/reboot attempts that didn't do as well as hoped.

I haven't seen it yet myself and I won't. At least not in the pictures. But most reports range from awful to meh, with some saying good. So, "mixed" at best. That's just not enough for me to get off my ass and fork out for it.

- - - Updated - - -

HUEKreyTkvA

[Neil]

Wow some serious racial hate stuff going on towards Leslie Jones - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36842710

Her account - https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnrloORWEAAVIHA.jpg

[shootemindehead]

Madness. Just madness.

You really have to wonder what goes through some people's minds.

[Trancelikestate]

There's talk of it as a stunt to boost ticket sales. I saw a shot of a tweet that was never confirmed as real or fake of her saying she had done such a thing. Either way, she didn't ignore them like she should have but fed into it. This reboot is the Hollywood equivalent of a black hole of negativity that just grows and sucks in everything around it.

[MinionZombie]

Madness. Just madness.

You really have to wonder what goes through some people's minds.

Yep. :confused:

[bassman]

She was actually pretty darn good in the movie. Much better than the trailers would suggest and she serves a good purpose rather than being the stereotype tag along. She's the most relatable character to the audience like Winston in the original, but actually has more input in the grand scheme of things.

But yes, it's very sad that "fans" have devolved into this horrible racist bullshit. One of those times when I really, really hope karma does exist and they'll get what's coming to them....

[Neil]

My daughter went last night with a friend's family. There were supposedly only about 20 people in the cinema, and "the dad" fell asleep half way though... :)

[Trancelikestate]

Well, we're in week three, most theaters have dropped it and it hasn't even made back the production budget. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't enjoying this. As a fan, I should be bummed and in ways I am. I'm bummed the franchise will be buried for another 30 years and that they didn't listen to us, but they so deserve it.

[EvilNed]

It might just be me, but it not getting it's budget back is to me more of a sign of it having to big of a budget.
It's a sensational action comedy first and foremost. The closest thing I can compare it too (without having seen it) would be something like Zombieland, which had not even a fifth of this films budget, but made a big profit because it was a low budget production.

The same goes for the Star Trek film. It's got a budget of 185 million, with marketing on top of that. It's not going to make that back. I knew that from the start.
Either I'm just good at speculating potential spending to income ratios, or they know something I don't (which clearly must be the case), such as toys, merchandise and other marketing ploys covering the gap in income and spendings.

[Trancelikestate]

Yeah, it was a big budget but they screwed the pooch when they told the fanboys to go f themselves. This is GB. The second most recognized insignia in the world behind the Superman S. It could have been big. Jurassic World or Star Wars numbers had it been done correctly. But this is what you get when you green light a project based on people's ego's and not marketing data. Die GB16, die.

[EvilNed]

Everyone I've met who's seen it has loved it.

I have not seen it, but then again I haven't seen anything except Star Trek this summer.

[Trancelikestate]

I cannot say the same. I've heard mediocre at best. But, now Sony is facing up to a one hundred million dollar loss. (http://ihorror.com/ghostbusters-sequel-dead-reboot-facing-100m-loss/#sthash.NGVmdGv2.gbpl&st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/) Yeah, this is what Harold would have wanted. :(

[EvilNed]

When they valuated the worth of that franchise they were really way off...

[bassman]

I cannot say the same. I've heard mediocre at best. But, now Sony is facing up to a one hundred million dollar loss. (http://ihorror.com/ghostbusters-sequel-dead-reboot-facing-100m-loss/#sthash.NGVmdGv2.gbpl&st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/) Yeah, this is what Harold would have wanted. :(

The mention of the late Harold Ramis made me think of this great article from his daughter regarding his passing, the original, the reboot, and the fans...

http://splitsider.com/2016/07/on-my-dad-harold-ramis-and-passing-the-ghostbusters-torch-to-a-new-generation-of-fans/


As much as I wanted to stomp my foot and align myself with the opposition, there was no way I could stand behind the viciousness and ugliness that seemed to fuel these fundamentalists. From flat-out rejection of women as funny, to remarks about the actors’ looks, to the invocation of GB84 as ‘untouchable’ and disgust with ‘reboot culture’ generally, I was shocked by the anger and outrage. Are these people for real? I wondered. Sure, the timing sucks, but damn! I mourn my dad’s absence in this world as much, if not more, than anyone, but for people to say that he is “rolling in his grave” or would never have let a female-centered cast happen is INSANE. In his personal life, Harold Ramis was a kind, generous, and gracious person. Professionally, he was always about sharing the spotlight and making the other guy look good. Please, stop using my dad as an excuse to hate the new Ghostbusters. It degrades his memory to spew bile in his name.

[Trancelikestate]

I'm familiar with the article. Just watching his past interviews and knowing his body of work is why I say honestly and without strife that I seriously doubt he'd have been into this project.