f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Movies => Topic started by: Lakov_Sanite on January 28, 2015, 07:11:24 AM



Title: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 28, 2015, 07:11:24 AM
Direceted by Paul Feige, cast announced just now http://www.superherohype.com/news/328081-the-ghostbusters-reboot-cast-revealed

I....don't hate it?  Just so many mixed emotions.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on January 28, 2015, 07:38:50 AM
Was the script already written and they were just waiting on a cast? 18 months to scout, shoot, post-produce and re-shoot seems ambitious.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: SurfD on January 28, 2015, 07:39:20 AM
It is scheduled to release in competiton with a Power Rangers Reboot.   Fucking POWER RANGERS.  I gather the studios obviously dont have much faith in this thing taking on any serious competition in the box office.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on January 28, 2015, 07:53:02 AM
Power Rangers are still a big thing among boys 9-11 (at least here) AND hit the nostalgia curve for the original audience of 9-11 year olds who are now 30-32 at the high-end. I expect it to do better than you're implying.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: sickrubik on January 28, 2015, 11:53:08 AM
The cast is a good cast.

The "worst" one is McCarthy, but she can be good when used correctly. The rest of the cast, especially McKinnon, is fantastic.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Nebu on January 28, 2015, 11:56:20 AM
Hollywood is officially out of new ideas. 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: shiznitz on January 28, 2015, 12:15:21 PM
I have zero interest in this now.  If they wanted to switch up the gender mix, then it should be a mix.  I assumed Hollywood would steal liberally from Biog Bang Theory for this. That's how I would have pitched this movie.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Maven on January 28, 2015, 12:23:23 PM
Immediately put off by the cast announcement, but let's see what they do with it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Phildo on January 28, 2015, 12:37:21 PM
Totally stoked for Guy Richie's King Arthur, though!


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on January 28, 2015, 12:42:14 PM
I'm reserving judgment until the first trailer.  They're talking about this having more darkness than the original (the ghosts are a real threat rather than just funny).  That could go either very right (Half Ghost Busters, Half Evil Dead 2 could be good) or really wrong (like trying to drop the rogues gallery from the 1960s Batman into Christian Bale's Batman). 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: eldaec on January 28, 2015, 02:16:31 PM
Ghostbusters had as much threat as Back to the Future or Indiana Jones. By which I don't mean none, I mean about the right amount for an adventure comedy.

I'd expect they'd want to amp it up a bit to allow for the production values people expect 35 years later, but I wouldn't say the ghosts were 'just comedy' even last time around.

I seem to remember the hell hounds and marshmallow man being some serious shit from the perspective of a kid in the eighties.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: dd0029 on January 28, 2015, 02:58:40 PM
I seem to remember the hell hounds and marshmallow man being some serious shit from the perspective of a kid in the eighties.

"Get her!" That was terrifying at the time.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: shiznitz on January 28, 2015, 03:03:57 PM
Maybe McCarthy and Slimer can have a hotdog eating contest....


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 28, 2015, 03:06:34 PM
Magic 8 ball says 'Outlook not good'.

Hopes are not high. Willing to re-evaluate, but I have already had my fill of some of these people (McCarthy in particular...one trick pony). A good script and a good directorial effort could save it, but I am not going to hold my breath.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on January 28, 2015, 03:08:06 PM
buckle up for some female comedy


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Malakili on January 28, 2015, 03:47:46 PM
Ghostbusters is just forever tied to the 1980s for me.  I can't see it translating well to 2015.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on January 28, 2015, 04:23:24 PM
I was never all that invested in the Ghostbusters as a franchise, so I didn't really care about this when it had the original cast attached. I sure don't care much now.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Signe on January 29, 2015, 02:51:15 PM
I'm with WAP's magic 8 ball on this one.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on January 30, 2015, 04:59:43 PM
This whole "all female ghostbusters" thing was a throw away comment like a year ago.

That it materialized is just fucking depressing. None of those girls stack up to any member of the original cast. To that point, no recast would stack up to the original cast.

What a disaster.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on January 30, 2015, 07:47:39 PM
The best thing I can say so far is that Wiig and McCarthy have both done much better acting 5+ years ago than they've done recently. They have the potential to be better than their recent stuff... but that is not saying much.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Khaldun on January 30, 2015, 08:17:47 PM
Nostalgia is evidently a mind-cleansing instrument.

Let's take Murray and Ramis. Coming off of a shambolic, sometimes-funny-as-hell-sometimes-Hollywood-dumb film (Stripes), they kind of struck gold. I think without knowing how or why they did. If there had been websites like this in 1981, your spiritual equivalents would have been saying, 'I dunno, sounds kind of dumb'. Even the film itself doesn't really stand up that well to really tough scrutiny. It just...it kind of was what it was. An accident, a glorious accident. There are patches in it that are kind of shit or awful, there's Ernie Hudson doing I don't know what, etcetera.

It's bad to act as if it is reasonable to repeat it--but equally bad to act as if it's impossible to, if you know what I mean. None of you would have expected it to be what it was when it was. So who knows?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Phildo on January 30, 2015, 09:23:49 PM
You shut your mouth about Ernie Hudson.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Pennilenko on January 30, 2015, 09:40:56 PM
You shut your mouth about Ernie Hudson.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Maven on January 31, 2015, 12:09:47 AM
Ghostbusters might as well be the Virgin Mary to techies and pop culture fanatics. Several Blizzard developers *revered* that movie. With the Marvel movies drawing out "that crowd," it surprises me little that so much effort was put into a new Ghostbusters.

The fandom was only for the original. We do not speak of the sequel.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on January 31, 2015, 12:31:42 AM
Ghostbusters might as well be the Virgin Mary to techies and pop culture fanatics. Several Blizzard developers *revered* that movie. With the Marvel movies drawing out "that crowd," it surprises me little that so much effort was put into a new Ghostbusters.

The fandom was only for the original. We do not speak of the sequel.

It's not that effort wasn't put forward it's that Murray was kinda holding things up then well, Ramis passed away.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Maven on January 31, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Yeah, I don't blame Murray either. I should have been more specific, I meant in the last three to five years.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: sickrubik on January 31, 2015, 03:09:16 PM
The best thing I can say so far is that Wiig and McCarthy have both done much better acting 5+ years ago than they've done recently. They have the potential to be better than their recent stuff... but that is not saying much.

In regards to Wiig, what the hell are you talking about? Go watch Skeleton Twins. And her starring roles are only about 3.5 years ago. McCarthy's film roles aren't that old either. But I also don't know much about her stuff aside from maybe Bridesmaids.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on January 31, 2015, 03:18:02 PM
I have not seen Skeleton Twins - Wiig could be good in it for all I know.  However, everything I have seen her in recently was been disappointing - and she has been disappointing in those things.  Same for McCarthy.  However, both did some stuff in the 2000s that I respected and enjoyed. 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ruvaldt on January 31, 2015, 03:54:03 PM
Like what?

I can't name a single movie McCarthy was in during the 2000s, though I'm sure she had a couple of bit roles before Mike & Molly/Bridesmaids.  Same for Kristen Wiig because she was on SNL and wasn't doing many movies and when she did they were minor roles.  Bridesmaids was only like three and a half years ago.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on January 31, 2015, 04:05:57 PM
Crimany.  Both of these actresses have been acting since early 2000s... go check IMDB. 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on January 31, 2015, 04:28:33 PM
Just a reminder that there was the Cartoon Series "the REAL Ghostbusters" which carried the franchise along. It was actually quite good but went in a different direction to the movies

Ghostbusters to me was the characters in the move. "Ghostbusters" with tits does nothing for me. Why the everloving fech should I care?

And Ernie Hudson rocked.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: sickrubik on January 31, 2015, 05:00:11 PM
Crimany.  Both of these actresses have been acting since early 2000s... go check IMDB. 

Are you suggesting that both did better in bit parts? That's their resumes prior to around 2010. Aside from SNL for Wiig and... Mike and Molly for McCarthy.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Segoris on January 31, 2015, 05:03:59 PM
I'm not opposed to an all female or a mixed female/male cast, but holy shit this is an awful casting.

Nostalgia is evidently a mind-cleansing instrument.

Let's take Murray and Ramis. Coming off of a shambolic, sometimes-funny-as-hell-sometimes-Hollywood-dumb film (Stripes), they kind of struck gold. I think without knowing how or why they did. If there had been websites like this in 1981, your spiritual equivalents would have been saying, 'I dunno, sounds kind of dumb'. Even the film itself doesn't really stand up that well to really tough scrutiny. It just...it kind of was what it was. An accident, a glorious accident. There are patches in it that are kind of shit or awful, there's Ernie Hudson doing I don't know what, etcetera.

It's bad to act as if it is reasonable to repeat it--but equally bad to act as if it's impossible to, if you know what I mean. None of you would have expected it to be what it was when it was. So who knows?


Akroyd and Murray, by the time Ghostbusters would have been announced and not counting SNL, had at least made more than one thing that I found entertaining. Wiig and McCarthy have been funny once with Bridesmaides, and have been nothing but annoying and unfunny besides that movie. 

For Ramis (as an actor) and Ernie Hudson I would not have been excited and I'm the same way with McKinnon and Jones where I haven't seen enough of them. However, at least I could have thought "Ramis is writing this? It has hope." I can't do that with the 2016 one since Paul Feig has done all shit but Bridesmaides and Bad Teacher (not great but kind of funny) and Dippold's best work was MadTV.....enough said about her.

Nostalgia isn't clouding judgement as much as it may seem.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ruvaldt on January 31, 2015, 05:15:01 PM
Crimany.  Both of these actresses have been acting since early 2000s... go check IMDB. 

Yeah, now that you mention it, Melissa McCarthy was spellbinding as "paramedic" in White Oleander.  Such a stirring performance.  It's a shame she isn't getting roles that inspiring anymore.   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on January 31, 2015, 06:10:39 PM
...and this is the first time I've been really tempted to use that idiotic face palm smiley that gets overused here...


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ruvaldt on January 31, 2015, 06:15:37 PM
Yeah, you clearly liked them before they were big, Jgsugden.  You're cooler than us.  I'm sure their early albums were better, etc...


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on January 31, 2015, 09:06:33 PM
Other than I guess she was on Gilmore girls, that I never watched btw, I had never heard of Melissa McCarthy til Bridesmaids and Mike and Molly.  Wiig was popular on SNL, but she also really didn't break out as a star in movies til she left.. and once again Bridesmaids.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on January 31, 2015, 10:22:31 PM
I like Wiig and McCarthy. It's important to make the distinction between the material and their talents - to me they both seem very talented.

The other two are awful. I stopped watching SNL partly because of them. McKinnon is incredibly one-note - her whole gimmick is her crazy-eyes thing. That's all she's got - she can make her eyes really big and crazy looking. Jones is just terrible, constantly fumbling her lines, and just not funny at all with horrible delivery.

http://gawker.com/was-this-actually-the-worst-saturday-night-live-sketch-1654677489
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/04/leslie_joness_frustrating_performance_why_im_afraid_she_wasnt_the_right_choice_for_snl/

Even the people who were like "SNL needs to hire a black woman" are like "oops she sucks."

This movie desperately needs Judy Greer. She would work amazing as a Janine-type, or as Rick Moranis, or as an unhinged Egon or Ray. It blows my mind that McKinnon and Jones are in this movie and she isn't.



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: sickrubik on February 01, 2015, 12:36:28 PM
McKinnon is incredibly talented. I think it's incredibly unfair to reduce her great character performances as "crazy-eyes". She does some great on-point impressions. She's generally regarded as one of the best on the current cast, so it just kind of blows my mind to see that reaction. I had the exact polar reaction to what you had. As soon as I saw her locked in, I was absolutely sold on the cast.

Jones.... has definitely had some issues with the transition. She's had some great moments this season, but hasn't quite clicked, unfortunately. Which is a shame, as she can be absolutely hilarious and bring a great unique perspective to the cast that I think was missing. She also has some great moments on Weekend Update.

Her interview on Maron's WTF was pretty great and heartbreaking at times.

That being said, I would have loved to see Greer in the cast somehow. While I haven't been blown away with any of her improvisation, she is great with a strong script.

Quote
I like Wiig and McCarthy. It's important to make the distinction between the material and their talents - to me they both seem very talented.

This is a great statement, though. Even in poorer material, they can deliver moments that are touching and heartfelt amidst the comedy.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on February 01, 2015, 12:47:54 PM
McCarthy both peaked and bottomed out during Gilmore Girls. Let's not pretend otherwise.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on February 01, 2015, 12:57:06 PM
McCarthy both peaked and bottomed out during Gilmore Girls. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Pretty sure her bank account solidly refutes that.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on February 01, 2015, 02:12:57 PM
I thought McCarthy was hilarious in The Heat with Sandra Bullock. Yes, she's kind of getting into a rut with the physical comedy schtick but I still find her funny.

Still couldn't really give a shit about a Ghostbusters reboot of any kind, but even less of one without the original cast.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on February 01, 2015, 03:25:47 PM
McCarthy both peaked and bottomed out during Gilmore Girls. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Pretty sure her bank account solidly refutes that.
Yes, that was totally a financial assessment and not a comment on the fact she's been typecast as the fat chick with the mouth of a Boston sailor.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: SurfD on March 10, 2015, 02:26:03 AM
So, as if one new Ghostbusters movie wasnt enough, word has it (http://www.people.com/article/ivan-reitman-dan-aykroyd-channing-tatum-ghost-corps?xid=rss-fullcontent) Sony has a SECOND movie in the works, with an all male cast, appearently with Channing Tatum assocciated with it as possible producer and Actor.

Quote
"We want to expand the Ghostbusters universe in ways that will include different films, TV shows, merchandise, all things that are part of modern filmed entertainment," Ivan Reitman told Deadline. "Paul Feig's film will be the first version of that, shooting in June to come out in July 2016. He’s got four of the funniest women in the world ... the second film has a wonderful idea that builds on that."
Sounds like they are trying to jump-start a modern take on something like a ghostbusters cinematic universe.



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on March 10, 2015, 02:53:21 AM
I'd be fine with that because the all female version is gonna be an unmitigated disaster. Throwaway Twitter comments does not a movie make.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: DraconianOne on March 10, 2015, 07:36:09 AM
Apparently they're working on making all the films part of a larger storyline that will have all the teams coming together as part of a larger global organisation.  I also read on a GB fanfic blog that they're still negotiating a deal to bring Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd back into the franchise in time for Ghostbusters: Civil War


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 10, 2015, 10:06:23 AM
This will work about as well as the new dracula movie.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on March 10, 2015, 11:06:14 AM
Ghostbusters did not need one sequel, much less a second one 20+ years later. It sure as fuck doesn't need a "universe."


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: shiznitz on March 10, 2015, 03:39:23 PM
Unless porn, of course.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: SurfD on March 11, 2015, 12:02:05 AM
Rumor has it that they are also considering a Prequel as well.  :psyduck:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Johny Cee on March 11, 2015, 12:08:55 AM
Ghostbusters did not need one sequel, much less a second one 20+ years later. It sure as fuck doesn't need a "universe."

I found someone who didn't love The Real Ghostbusters as a kid!


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Mac on March 11, 2015, 06:19:56 AM
Aren't we quickly approaching a point where there will be nothing left to reboot/re-imagine?  

Can't wait for the Police Academy or the fucking Cannonball Run reboot.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 11, 2015, 06:27:47 AM
What did you think Fast and Furious was ?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: SurfD on March 11, 2015, 07:34:37 AM
Aren't we quickly approaching a point where there will be nothing left to reboot/re-imagine?  

Can't wait for the Police Academy or the fucking Cannonball Run reboot.

Actuallly, if they managed to keep the cornball comedy aspect of the original, a modern take on Cannonball run might actually be pretty cool.  Of course, given today's film climate, they would most likely turn it into some kind of serious biznz grimdark affair instead of a road race comedy like it should be.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 11, 2015, 09:28:16 AM
What did you think Fast and Furious was ?



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Mac on March 11, 2015, 09:39:24 AM
Perhaps, just like the Cannonball Run was a reboot of The Great Race I guess.
 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lantyssa on March 11, 2015, 09:51:19 AM
Did Fast and the Furious have cameos by most current Hollywood actors at the time, though?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 11, 2015, 09:57:06 AM
That wasn't just Cannonball Run tho.  There were a fair few franchises doing that shit, though I'd agree not to that extent.

I remember it with great fondness.  Mostly because this Infrared was the cats ass.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 11, 2015, 01:20:59 PM
Shit, now I have to watch Cannonball Run again.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on March 11, 2015, 01:51:07 PM
Aren't we quickly approaching a point where there will be nothing left to reboot/re-imagine?  

Can't wait for the Police Academy or the fucking Cannonball Run reboot.


It's the logical endpoint of how several things that are really fucked in American law with regards to creativity interact with big budget risks.

Expect it to get worse after the Marvin Gaye/ Alan Thicke ruling, at least in music.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on March 11, 2015, 02:39:31 PM
Ghostbusters did not need one sequel, much less a second one 20+ years later. It sure as fuck doesn't need a "universe."

I found someone who didn't love The Real Ghostbusters as a kid!

I did not. Hell, I like Ghostbusters well enough but didn't think it was such an amazing movie that it needed a sequel.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on March 11, 2015, 03:27:50 PM
I always suspected you were an asshole.  :grin:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on March 11, 2015, 03:35:54 PM
There was ever enough doubt for you to suspect? I must be getting soft in my old age.  :grin:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ingmar on March 11, 2015, 03:45:43 PM
The Cannonball Run reboot wasn't Fast & Furious, it was Rat Race.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on March 11, 2015, 04:54:21 PM
There was ever enough doubt for you to suspect? I must be getting soft in my old age.  :grin:
No, he was obviously being oblivious.  You've been pretty darn clear.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: DraconianOne on March 11, 2015, 06:48:06 PM
The Cannonball Run reboot wasn't Fast & Furious, it was Rat Race.

Ha - I knew someone else had seen it!


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 11, 2015, 07:09:11 PM
I've seen it, but I don't really agree...


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Mac on March 12, 2015, 05:33:52 AM
It's the logical endpoint of how several things that are really fucked in American law with regards to creativity interact with big budget risks.

Expect it to get worse after the Marvin Gaye/ Alan Thicke ruling, at least in music.
So what are you saying? That moviemakers are choosing established IP's over new stuff so they don't run the risk of getting sued for plagiarism? I just thought they were lazy and only wanted to go with already proven IP to decrease risk.





Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Cyrrex on March 12, 2015, 06:06:44 AM
The Cannonball Run reboot wasn't Fast & Furious, it was Rat Race.

Surely you mean Wacky Races, which is clearly the first and most superior version in this particular genre.

Ghostbusters with a forced female cast - meh.  Not sure why we need one, but okay, some of them might be funny.  Sorta.

Ghostbusters reboot with Channing Tatum - wtf?  Is there anyone less funny than Channing Tatum, or am I missing some of his secretly brilliant but hidden comedy work?  Ghostbusters has to be a comedy, otherwise it can go fuck itself.



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MediumHigh on March 12, 2015, 06:09:55 AM
I don't remember ghostbusters being all that funny. Am I the only one? Like the movie had funny moments but being a "comedy" is a stretch.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on March 12, 2015, 10:00:43 AM
Yes, you're the only one. It was an 80's comedy. Ramis, Muarry, Aykroid, Moranis as cast.  Writing team of Ramis, Aykroid, Moranis.

Jesus.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 12, 2015, 10:22:49 AM
You can't NOT call it a comedy when every single thing in it is so absurd. 

It's about a group of scientists that become ghost catchers.  The HQ is absurd.  The Receptionist is absurd.  The two chaps needing saving are absurd.  There's a fucking Stay Puft Marshmallow man as the main villain.

Yeah, it's a comedy.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on March 12, 2015, 10:32:52 AM
Am I to take it that you consider Stripes to be a gritty war drama, MediumHigh?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on March 12, 2015, 10:57:58 AM
Know what. I blame Sandler, Farley and their contemporaries more than MH.  Clearly there weren't enough fart, dick, poop and gay/ rape jokes compared to modern comedies so he got confused.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Maven on March 12, 2015, 03:27:41 PM
Ghostbusters is a religion to some nerds I know, what with its explanation of the afterlife.  :awesome_for_real: I slot this in that same category of people taking Star Wars and building their life around the Jedi Code because it isn't about Team Edward or Jacob for them but Jedi & Sith.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Cyrrex on March 12, 2015, 04:14:38 PM
Nah, I think that is taking it too far.  There may be a tiny niche out there somewhere, but I don't think people care overly much about the Ghostbusters Universe, if there even is such a thing.  I can appreciate it as a comedy due to the actors involved and their execution of the material, but I can list roughly zero important facts about the movie itself.  I give no fucks about either ghosts or their busting, but give me Bill Murray's smug, smarmy, arrogant, portrayal of whatshisface any day of the week.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: lamaros on March 13, 2015, 03:57:31 AM
Ghostbusters is Blues Brothers (a way better film IMO) level of adoration, not like Star Wars at all.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on March 13, 2015, 05:43:02 AM
I don't remember ghostbusters being all that funny. Am I the only one? Like the movie had funny moments but being a "comedy" is a stretch.

You need to change your name from MediumHigh to ExtremelyHigh.

What the hell would you call it? A drama? Horror? It has a plot, so I guess in that sense it's different from a lot of the random shit you get today like the "Epic Movie / Date Movie / Meet the Spartans" and such, and I suppose it's true that adventure comedies are much rarer than situation comedies - but it's still a comedy.
---

As far as being like Star Wars to people - Ghostbusters is a great movie. A much better movie than any Star Wars movie. With a great script, great acting - you know, stuff that actually makes movies good, as opposed to laser swords. But I don't think anyone cares about the mythology or the bigger picture. People like it for individual scenes and lines of dialogue, not because they give a shit about the backstory of Gozer or the broad philosophy of it. And unlike Star Wars it's not aspirational - being a Jedi would be awesome (except that you have to hang out with dull, joyless Jedi pricks), being a Ghostbuster would be silly.

That said...the cartoon did work with the premise in a way that was great, until it became about goofy Slimer shit. The idea of a Ghostbusters "cinematic universe" of course sounds like an awful cash grab, but it's an idea that has some potential if handled correctly - which it almost certainly won't be. But a universe of funny movies in which supernatural stuff is real isn't a terrible idea if you separate it out from the idiocy of every movie studio wanting their own "universe."


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: ezrast on March 13, 2015, 10:29:55 AM
The Cannonball Run reboot wasn't Fast & Furious, it was Rat Race.
I thought Rat Race was the It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World reboot.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ingmar on March 13, 2015, 03:03:06 PM
The Cannonball Run reboot wasn't Fast & Furious, it was Rat Race.
I thought Rat Race was the It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World reboot.

No, that was Cannonball Run. (We need to go deeper.)


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: pxib on July 11, 2015, 01:05:38 AM
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/d0510408d89a3806545cc1910adead72/tumblr_nr8zm5EnRp1rd10xoo3_540.jpg)



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Draegan on July 11, 2015, 04:03:40 PM
Nah


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Teleku on July 11, 2015, 04:11:00 PM
Burn it with fire.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Setanta on July 11, 2015, 07:20:30 PM
To me, Ghostbusters was the perfect synergy at the time. Great comedy with a dash of action and 99% pseudo-science thrown in. Great actors and writing and direction that really "just happened" to fall together along with good special effects for the 1980s. I don't know that it has stood the test of time as well as other films, but at the time it was just awesome happy fun. Kind of like Stripes, Uncle Buck, Big Trouble in Little China (which I loved), Escape from New York, Robocop etc. Even when serious the films had fun moments/quips thrown in.

I have no idea the actresses are in this version, nor am I into it being a gritty reboot of the franchise. Without the Ramis/Moranis/Aykroyd/Murray combo I think the film would have fallen on its face although I would have liked to see which parts John Candy and John Belushi would have held in Aykroyd's original drafts. Even Ecto1 and the fire building made the film what it is - by retro-rebooting the vehicle I just don't get the "cool" vibe of the original.

The gender reboot was a silly move, you can have strong female protagonists that can stand alongside males and not be overshadowed. This is what they should have done, a gender mix with no romantic attachments woven into the storyline.

Anyway, will wait for it to come out on DVD - if I can skip Age of UIlton, I can give this a miss.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Riggswolfe on July 12, 2015, 11:42:29 PM
To me, Ghostbusters was the perfect synergy at the time. Great comedy with a dash of action and 99% pseudo-science thrown in. Great actors and writing and direction that really "just happened" to fall together along with good special effects for the 1980s. I don't know that it has stood the test of time as well as other films, but at the time it was just awesome happy fun. Kind of like Stripes, Uncle Buck, Big Trouble in Little China (which I loved), Escape from New York, Robocop etc. Even when serious the films had fun moments/quips thrown in.

I have no idea the actresses are in this version, nor am I into it being a gritty reboot of the franchise. Without the Ramis/Moranis/Aykroyd/Murray combo I think the film would have fallen on its face although I would have liked to see which parts John Candy and John Belushi would have held in Aykroyd's original drafts. Even Ecto1 and the fire building made the film what it is - by retro-rebooting the vehicle I just don't get the "cool" vibe of the original.

The gender reboot was a silly move, you can have strong female protagonists that can stand alongside males and not be overshadowed. This is what they should have done, a gender mix with no romantic attachments woven into the storyline.

Anyway, will wait for it to come out on DVD - if I can skip Age of UIlton, I can give this a miss.

I agree with a gender mix as well. Also, I doubt this movie will do well. Your average male is going to look at that cast photo and go "they're all ugly...moving on." It sounds awful but it's true. And it does feel forced frankly. I think a mix would have been much better than "all female just because!"


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on July 12, 2015, 11:46:37 PM
There are no female comics alive as funny or as fitting as Akroyd, Murray, and Ramis at what was arguably their peak.

Shit, there aren't any male comics alive that can pull this off. The death of Ramis is the death of Ghostbusters.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Velorath on July 13, 2015, 12:13:19 AM
I agree with a gender mix as well. Also, I doubt this movie will do well. Your average male is going to look at that cast photo and go "they're all ugly...moving on." It sounds awful but it's true. And it does feel forced frankly. I think a mix would have been much better than "all female just because!"

Paul Feig's last three movies either starred, or heavily featured Melissa McCarthy, and this is his third time working with Kristen Wiig. Bridesmaids and Spy were both very well reviewed, and The Heat's reviews were a bit mixed but generally positive. Dollar-wise the movies did ok considering their estimated budgets. I assume this will do closer to Paul Feig numbers at the box office as opposed to Ghostbuster numbers, but unless they go crazy with special effects, I can't see it costing too much to make given the cast.

Of course it isn't going to be anywhere near as good as Ghostbusters, but then even all the talented people involved in making the first movie managed to crap out Ghostbusters II (I know somebody is going to try to say that it's not a bad movie, but fuck them, they're wrong). It's like worrying that Terminator Genisys is going to shit up the franchise when the reality is that happened two movies ago.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on July 13, 2015, 12:21:05 AM
Bridesmaids was dogshit.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Velorath on July 13, 2015, 12:24:29 AM
Bridesmaids was dogshit.

Then I predict you won't like any of Feig's other movies.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on July 13, 2015, 12:39:29 AM
Given he has turned McCarthy into a girl Chris Farley, I suspect not.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Setanta on July 13, 2015, 02:12:25 AM
I'm happy to agree that GB2 was a bad movie - it just felt wrong. Which Terminator movie was the rotten egg? I loved T1 and T2.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Cyrrex on July 13, 2015, 02:27:35 AM
Given he has turned McCarthy into a girl Chris Farley, I suspect not.

Wait.  Not that I like anything about McCarthy, but did you just basically say you don't like Chris Farley?  Is it because he's dead?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Malakili on July 13, 2015, 05:46:47 AM
Which Terminator movie was the rotten egg? I loved T1 and T2.

All of them that weren't T1 or T2.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Khaldun on July 13, 2015, 06:58:29 AM
Given he has turned McCarthy into a girl Chris Farley, I suspect not.

Wait.  Not that I like anything about McCarthy, but did you just basically say you don't like Chris Farley?  Is it because he's dead?

Maybe because he wasn't funny even when he was alive?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 13, 2015, 07:23:20 AM
Spy was very good.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Rendakor on July 13, 2015, 08:19:47 AM
I liked Ghostbusters 2 when I saw it, because I was 5. It certainly doesn't hold up as well as the original, though.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Riggswolfe on July 13, 2015, 08:56:16 AM
I blame Bill Murray for this. If he hadn't dragged his feet we'd have had a proper Ghostbusters 3 while Ramis was still alive. Then again, after Ghostbusters 2 he may have saved our childhoods, it's a 50/50 split.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Khaldun on July 13, 2015, 09:57:37 AM
I love Bill Murray for stopping an old-man Ghostbusters 3 with the now-quite unfunny Dan Aykroyd, who is also now very seriously invested in ghosts-are-real stuff, which should give anyone a certain amount of trepidation about his desperation to get the movie made. (Probably more about money than anything else.)  You only need to have seen Year One to realize a Ramis-helmed movie made around 2009-2010 would also have been a bad thing.

Murray is really the only guy in the original film whose talent has been pretty persistent--he outgrew those guys a long time ago, and they diminished at the same pace.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on July 13, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Seeing that picture of them in costume:

NOPE.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Yegolev on July 13, 2015, 12:06:49 PM
EETS VEEGOOO


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: 01101010 on July 13, 2015, 01:33:59 PM
Seeing that picture of them in costume:

NOPE.



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Surlyboi on July 14, 2015, 05:56:20 AM
Not fair. Weaver's amazing in almost everything.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on July 14, 2015, 06:26:50 AM
That costume was better too. Stripes are never flattering.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Tebonas on July 14, 2015, 06:31:27 AM
They even have those ghastly stripes on their boots, which makes them look even more ridiculous.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on July 14, 2015, 06:43:02 AM
They even have those ghastly stripes on their boots, which makes them look even more ridiculous.

I ain't 'fraid of no ghast!

(Sorry)


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Surlyboi on July 15, 2015, 10:37:00 PM
Just found out they're filming this in Boston instead of New York yet the movie's supposed to take place in New York.

Fuck that shit.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on July 16, 2015, 12:16:18 AM
This will be terrible and do terrible.

But no one will come right out and criticize all the things that made it terrible.

Because feminist hate mobs will end their careers and ability to just live life.

Even if it's just some schlub with a blog 100 people read, they will hammer them and try their best to bring the ruin into that person's real life.

Filming a movie set in NYC in Boston will be the best thing about the movie. You aren't going to want the cooties from this thing to rub off onto your city Surly.

That being said, they should have set it in Philadelphia with the cast of Always Sunny and made it a fucked up two hour crossover thing. That would be funny as hell.

Someone should be throwing money hats at me, my movie ideas are a million times better than the shit getting greenlit.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Phildo on July 16, 2015, 04:21:01 PM
Maybe this will be great?  I don't know, it seems like we have three or four concurrent threads where everyone is piling on with "this is definitely going to be awful" based on either casting decisions or a few early teasers.  (http://i.imgur.com/6eE2WZp.gif)


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on July 16, 2015, 04:25:27 PM
I'm looking forward to this one, ironically.

I just want more busting of ghosts.  Busting makes me feel good.

Anything else can go swing.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Phildo on July 16, 2015, 04:26:08 PM
Bonus points if they can talk Huey Lewis into covering the Ghostbusters theme song.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Velorath on July 16, 2015, 04:30:32 PM
I'm looking forward to this one, ironically.

I just want more busting of ghosts.  Busting makes me feel good.

Anything else can go swing.

You hear that Bob? The feminists have already taken control of Scotland!


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on July 16, 2015, 04:31:24 PM
Well, of course.  Even the men wear skirts.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on July 16, 2015, 05:21:19 PM
And the ladies have beards and chest hair.

There's a reason that the voice of every dwarf in any medium has a thick Scottish accent.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on July 16, 2015, 05:35:05 PM
Just found out they're filming this in Boston instead of New York yet the movie's supposed to take place in New York.

Fuck that shit.

The original was shot mostly in LA.

Of all the things to complain about this seems like a very silly one. Downtown Boston looks as much like NY as LA does, and plenty of movies / TV that are supposed to take place in New York are shot in places like Vancouver. (The Strain for example)

I'm kind of looking forward to this. I mean, it's not going to be as good as the original, but that's impossible. I still would have preferred a lineup like Wigg, Tina Fey, Judy Greer and Mccarthy though.

Imagine Judy Greer as an Egon-type - would be amazing.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Threash on July 16, 2015, 07:02:01 PM
There was nothing special about the Ghostbuster franchise other than prime Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis (and Rick Moranis too i guess), and even THEY could not pull off a good sequel.  This is going to be horrible.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on July 16, 2015, 07:54:18 PM
Most movies set in New York aren't filmed there as it's too goddamned expensive. 

Hell, X-files filmed in Toronto for Washington D.C.

It's as if Hollywood was built on lies and fabrications.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Venkman on July 16, 2015, 08:23:08 PM
Yea but there's a difference between "looks like anywhere" Vancouver and "older than New York" Boston, especially in Yankee/Red Sox land. It's a minor point though.

I'm not inspired by this version yet. But making any sequel to Ghostbusters would be like making a sequel to Fifth Element. It just can't possibly do the same thing to the same degree of coolness. It has to be different.

My one fear is they retell the original story but with women instead of men doing all the same exact shit. That would be insulting to the women playing the roles. I hope they tell a different story.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Surlyboi on July 16, 2015, 11:05:32 PM
Quote
Yea but there's a difference between "looks like anywhere" Vancouver and "older than New York" Boston, especially in Yankee/Red Sox land. It's a minor point though.

This. I'm less concerned about it being filmed in somewhere like Vancouver and saying it's New York. (Decent chunks of Fringe) Or Toronto (Suits). New Yorkers know Boston when we see it. and we don't like it. LA doesn't piss us off as much and LA pisses everyone off.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Setanta on July 17, 2015, 12:52:13 AM
Yea but there's a difference between "looks like anywhere" Vancouver and "older than New York" Boston, especially in Yankee/Red Sox land. It's a minor point though.

That's what ruined the Matrix for me - set in the US but all I saw was Sydney CBD. Not to mentioon all the RHD cars.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Yegolev on July 17, 2015, 09:54:30 AM
They could have filmed in Atlanta and the entire cast would have been sweaty.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on July 17, 2015, 11:29:58 AM
Yea but there's a difference between "looks like anywhere" Vancouver and "older than New York" Boston, especially in Yankee/Red Sox land. It's a minor point though.

That's what ruined the Matrix for me - set in the US but all I saw was Sydney CBD. Not to mentioon all the RHD cars.

Quote
Yea but there's a difference between "looks like anywhere" Vancouver and "older than New York" Boston, especially in Yankee/Red Sox land. It's a minor point though.

This. I'm less concerned about it being filmed in somewhere like Vancouver and saying it's New York. (Decent chunks of Fringe) Or Toronto (Suits). New Yorkers know Boston when we see it. and we don't like it. LA doesn't piss us off as much and LA pisses everyone off.

We've had this discussion before. Specifically about X-files if I remember right When it was last discussed the response was, "Yeah but that's a small fraction of the viewing audience who 1) recognizes and 2) cares. Costs and willingness to suspend disbelief outweigh the over-zealous need for 'authenticity' of a few fringe viewers.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Yegolev on July 17, 2015, 11:53:00 AM
Fringe viewers?  Not many of those, right?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on July 17, 2015, 12:20:44 PM
I hear the movie is going to be shot using fake CGI ghosts instead of real ghosts.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on July 17, 2015, 12:28:02 PM
Oh.  So no Ramis then ?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: 01101010 on July 17, 2015, 04:46:47 PM
Oh.  So no Ramis then ?

TOO SOON!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Setanta on July 17, 2015, 05:03:40 PM
Oh.  So no Ramis then ?

Well played sir  :heart:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Fabricated on July 20, 2015, 12:18:58 PM
So is this actually a reboot or a continuation with this being a new squad? I've seen/heard conflicting things.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Samwise on July 20, 2015, 12:24:48 PM
The He-Man Woman Hater's Club will definitely hate this movie no matter how objectively good it is, and the Tumblr Warrior Brigade will definitely love this movie no matter how objectively bad it is, for equal and opposite reasons.  For the rest of us:

There was nothing special about the Ghostbuster franchise other than prime Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis (and Rick Moranis too i guess), and even THEY could not pull off a good sequel.  This is going to be horrible.

This, with at least 95% certainty.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on July 22, 2015, 10:08:45 AM
I found GB II pretty watchable and enjoyed it, I'll admit I found a few parts of it hilarious, but it was in no way in heck as good as the original.

This basically has "Why?" written all over it. Now if they had a cameo with Ray + Winston running the GB "franchise" and sending these clueless idiots out with a Camera team in tow to do a stupid fake "reality TV show" that blows up in their faces when the women accidentally break the seventh seal, now that MIGHT be good way to tie it in and would actually allow these women to develop new characters, and would at least be an interesting premise with a capacity for good satire. But these women playing the same characters??? Fuck no.

How come I'm able to come up with a better premise than the multi million paid hollywood exects?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Pennilenko on July 22, 2015, 10:12:10 AM
How come I'm able to come up with a better premise than the multi million paid hollywood exects?
Because there is no corporate exec team of money men forcing you to narrow your scope in order to avoid potential investment risk.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on July 22, 2015, 10:39:26 AM
I don't think this film is going to have anything substantial in common with the first film - a few cameos, if rumors are correct.  Story, characters, continuity - all new for this one.  They seem to be headed for a different feel, modern special effects, and a different underlying message.  I'd say that Bridesmaids will be closer in tone to this movie than Ghostbusters. 

Even if it is a good film, it'll be pissing on the grave of a great film.  However, GB II, the Real Ghostbusters, Slimer and the Real Ghostbusters, Extreme Ghostbusters, etc...  already soiled that sacred ground, even if they had their moments of non-suck.  This cheese must stand alone ... and as a standalone concept: Feig, Wiig, McCarthy, Garcia, Hemsworth... that menagerie could go either way.  I'm not expecting to love it, but I'm waiting for a trailer before I say it is worthless.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on July 22, 2015, 11:32:25 AM
Story, characters, continuity - all new for this one. 

(https://40.media.tumblr.com/d0510408d89a3806545cc1910adead72/tumblr_nr8zm5EnRp1rd10xoo3_540.jpg)

Um... I think you might need to revise that opinion because they are clearly going for the same characters, at least as character archtypes.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Samwise on July 22, 2015, 11:39:26 AM
The One Who Doesn't Want To Be In This Movie
The Black One Who Doesn't Know What's Going On
The Pudgy Space Cadet Nerd
The Nerd With Vertical Hair And Glasses

Looks about right.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on July 22, 2015, 11:58:47 AM
There will obviously be *some* similarities, but if you think that you'll basically get the same 4 to 7 main characters with gender swaps, the information released so far suggests otherwise.  

Of course, if you generalize the archetypes enough, you can get any team there.  I'm betting the ties between the New Ghostbusters and the original ones will be about as close as the ties between the Avengers and the original Ghostbusters.  Anyone have trouble picking the Venkman and Spengler in the Avengers?  


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 22, 2015, 01:28:20 PM
I'm sorry, but this picture doesn't fill me with confidence that this will be a fresh, funny take on the original concept, rather than a bad copy of the superficial aspects:

(http://imgick.masslive.com/home/mass-media/width960/img/republican/photo/2015/07/15/ghostbusters4jpg-78cf458c379743dc.jpg)
Link if that can't be hotlinked (http://imgick.masslive.com/home/mass-media/width960/img/republican/photo/2015/07/15/ghostbusters4jpg-78cf458c379743dc.jpg), (imgur shit the bed today).

--Dave


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Trippy on July 22, 2015, 01:30:58 PM
It depends on the story. If the present-day Ghostbusters are a down and out outfit cause there haven't been any ghosts to deal with for a long time I can see them needing to drive around an old vehicle.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 22, 2015, 01:42:23 PM
It depends on the story. If the present-day Ghostbusters are a down and out outfit cause there haven't been any ghosts to deal with for a long time I can see them needing to drive around an old vehicle.

Yeah, that would be fine. But where the original GB vehicle was an old 60's model ambulance, this is apparently an old hearse of a design and color scheme that simply never could have existed. Created because it was as close as they could get to the appearance of the original without actually just duplicating it exactly (which would have been better).

--Dave


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on July 22, 2015, 01:58:37 PM
Superficial nods are not really that important.  I expect the old car, the backpack proton pack, "don't cross the streams", "I ain't afraid of no ghosts", fire house, Slimer, etc... to all be there.  So what?  That is just a superficial trapping.  Adam West, Michael Keaton and Christian Bale all wore the bat suit, drove the bat mobile and said, "I'm Batman."  All three of them were different characters in different worlds telling different stories.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 22, 2015, 02:51:12 PM
So basically it'll have all the same stuff as the first movie but be totally original as well.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on July 22, 2015, 03:56:07 PM
So basically it'll have all the same stuff as the first movie but be totally original as well.   :awesome_for_real:
Sorry... let me say it slower for you... I T   C A N   H A V E   T H E   S A M E    T R A P P I N G S   A N D   S T I L L   B E   V E R Y   D I F F E R E N T.

Let me know if I need to stop using words and resort to just pictures. 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 22, 2015, 04:48:21 PM
So it can have the same....

outfits
equipment
vehicles
ghosts(slimer)
character archetypes
basic plot elements

and be it's own completely original movie. Gotcha.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: pxib on July 22, 2015, 05:45:40 PM
Like I said in the other thread (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=16981.msg650799#msg650799):
Quote
The plot of the first movie all but explicitly stated that the Ghostbusters are only necessary during extremely rare events which threaten the fabric of reality. Even then, they're dangerous and destructive. All the humor springs from the fact that the characters are either too jaded, too eager, too intellectual, or too sarcastic to realize how insane they are... and from their awkward interactions with sane people. It's basically a better version of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. In the second film the characters have come to realize how insane they are, and though it's enjoyable and hits a bunch of familiar notes, the self-awareness weakens the humor.

The only way to do the series justice in a third film would be to have (as the rumors are implying) a group of new Ghostbusters, every bit as crazy and naive as the original cast was in the first film. Heck, they're probably fans of the originals... who have now spent decades in their painfully normal, everyday, unghostbusterly lives. These new folks realize the fabric of reality is genuinely threatened, decide they're in over their heads, and start to seek out the old team WHO DO NOT BELIEVE THEM, and play the role that the sane folks played in the original: "At best you're confused, at worst this is a money-making hoax. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to carry a partical accellerator on your back? This sort of thing doesn't happen anymore. We should know."

Then, of course, (like the Mayor in the first film) they get convinced somehow and everybody teams up and saves the day.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on July 22, 2015, 06:53:56 PM
So it can have the same....

outfits
equipment
vehicles
ghosts(slimer)
character archetypes
basic plot elements

and be it's own completely original movie. Gotcha.
See above. Try sounding out the words slowly to see if that helps.  We're rooting for you.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: 01101010 on July 22, 2015, 07:10:33 PM
So it can have the same....

outfits
equipment
vehicles
ghosts(slimer)
character archetypes
basic plot elements

and be it's own completely original movie. Gotcha.
See above. Try sounding out the words slowly to see if that helps.  We're rooting for you.

 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on July 23, 2015, 03:13:37 PM
My ideal plot is that the events of GB 1 and 2 are cannon, and that after those incidents a bunch of Ghostbusters franchises spring up. But then there are no more ghost for like 20 years, so those franchises go out of business or just become glorified exterminators and such. These NY Ghostbusters are the only people left who still take the job seriously, so then when ghosts re-appear they are happy to spring into action but have no experience fighting ghosts and have no idea WTF they are doing.

Hollywood I'm available!


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Venkman on July 24, 2015, 04:57:31 PM
It depends on the story. If the present-day Ghostbusters are a down and out outfit cause there haven't been any ghosts to deal with for a long time I can see them needing to drive around an old vehicle.

That was kinda how GB 2 kicked off.

I blame the PR behind this movie so far. They haven't given anything fresh. All the images they post seem to result in the same reaction. They'd be better off shutting the heck up until a real trailer came out.

Kinda like a few MMOs back when those were a thing  :grin:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on July 25, 2015, 09:19:53 AM
Maybe they are going to offer early access tickets to the movie and are trying to drum up interest.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: shiznitz on March 03, 2016, 09:30:06 AM
Trailer is discoverable but I thought it was so bad I really don't want to link to it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 03, 2016, 09:34:50 AM
Yeah, they dropped the ball on that one.  Hope it's not indicative of the actual film or....


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on March 03, 2016, 09:40:25 AM
Trailer is discoverable but I thought it was so bad I really don't want to link to it.
With an endorsement like that, obviously I had to go watch it.

This whole "all female ghostbusters" thing was a throw away comment like a year ago.

That it materialized is just fucking depressing. None of those girls stack up to any member of the original cast. To that point, no recast would stack up to the original cast.

What a disaster.

Yup



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Fabricated on March 03, 2016, 09:42:56 AM
This looks insanely fucking bad.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on March 03, 2016, 09:43:28 AM
"but spy was so good"

fuck you, whoever


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: shiznitz on March 03, 2016, 09:44:09 AM
Every joke was a feminine cliche and the ghosts looked lame, somehow over-CGIed.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on March 03, 2016, 09:45:22 AM
The ghosts look like they came out of a Double Fine production. Like they just never went through that last pass of realism because the skillsets of the people involved didn't match the task at hand.

Also, fuck the cliche part, every joke was bad. Bad.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Fabricated on March 03, 2016, 09:45:30 AM
Like there are going to be retarded people who defend this just because of it being an all-female reboot when really it's about as insulting as you can get to its cast.

Leslie Jones seems to have literally be cast as "Fat Sassy Black Lady". Normally this offends the shit out of people but here it'll be like, "Ahahaha she said 'aw hell naw' to the ghost"


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 03, 2016, 09:58:24 AM
I still hold out hope that bad trailer is bad. 

Ah well.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on March 03, 2016, 10:16:48 AM
It was mediocre at best, which is disappointing. They should stop being cagey about if it's a reboot or a sequel, too. Since it looks like a reboot from the trailer I'm just not that interested. The original worked for the time and captured a lot of the 80s'. This captures the 10's in being a desperate grab for money by a creatively bankrupt industry run by beancounters.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on March 03, 2016, 10:17:21 AM
Jesus Christ that trailer was fucking awful. I didn't even snicker, not once. Why did the blonde with the weird glasses have only one line in the whole thing? And yes, the "AH HELL NAW" line was just cringeworthy - it's not like we haven't seen that exact fucking line from black actors for years used in the exact same way in all sorts of movies. It stops being funny after a while and starts to border on "black dude is going to be the first one to die in this horror/action movie." It's like T-Dog 3.0 bad.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 03, 2016, 11:28:05 AM
I probably mentioned it before, but Melissa McCarthy is a one trick pony whose shelf life expired a couple of years ago. Can't wait to not see this.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soln on March 03, 2016, 11:44:51 AM
I'd rather see Gods of Egypt.  Actually, I'd probably pay money not to see it (or that trailer again).


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: 01101010 on March 03, 2016, 11:46:42 AM
Well it will do rather well at the Razzies though... they got that going for them? No?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 03, 2016, 02:32:55 PM
Interesting.  Showed the trailer when I got home and Mrs and Kid loved it.

So they'll be going without me.

It's all worked out wonderfully !


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: apocrypha on March 03, 2016, 03:12:54 PM
A few of my friends, who I thought had better taste, have expressed glee and excitement on Facebook at that trailer. You think you know someone...


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Khaldun on March 03, 2016, 03:15:10 PM
I don't have the same "this can't be good" feeling as many of you but...that trailer is not good. I think maybe nobody's fully getting why the first film, which is actually pretty damn uneven, worked at all. Basically without Murray I don't think the first film is really much to speak of--he is the necessary ingredient. I don't feel like there's anything in that trailer that has that same sense of sardonic self-awareness or intelligence about the whole thing, and most of the rest of it is a set of bad "female" (or "female black") jokes, which I would kind of hope all the people who think it's a big achievement to have female Ghostbusters will not welcome. It really feels kind of meh in every way.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Fabricated on March 03, 2016, 04:47:33 PM
It looks like an Adam Sandler version of Ghostbusters.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Rendakor on March 03, 2016, 04:55:42 PM
I watched the trailer and thought it looked shit. Wife walked in halfway through and thought it looked funny. So of course, we're going to see it. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on March 03, 2016, 05:06:32 PM
and most of the rest of it is a set of bad "female" (or "female black") jokes, which I would kind of hope all the people who think it's a big achievement to have female Ghostbusters will not welcome.

The all female ghostbusters is exactly why they will find a way to excuse and defend them, no matter how hard they have twist to do it. It'll be like when the very same people turned around and started blaming European women for getting sexually assaulted.

That said, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RbZ8qG9QEo) pretty much sums up my feelings.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Fabricated on March 03, 2016, 05:40:19 PM
I will enjoy watching retarded "progressive" people attempt to defend a movie where the black female main cast member got typecast into being the sassy black lady who is the only one of the 4 main cast to not be educated and works a blue collar job.

Also when she says "AW HELL NAW" and "SHIEEEEEEEEEEET" at ghosts and does stereotypical shrieky black-woman shtick.

"i sho don' know nuffin bout no sciience n' shit but i knows new yawk honey Mmmmm Hmmmmm!"


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Phildo on March 03, 2016, 05:41:43 PM
The ghosts remind me of the monsters from the live-action Scooby Doo films.

I will enjoy watching retarded "progressive" people attempt to defend a movie where the black female main cast member got typecast into being the sassy black lady who is the only one of the 4 main cast to not be educated and works a blue collar job.

Also when she says "AW HELL NAW" and "SHIEEEEEEEEEEET" at ghosts and does stereotypical shrieky black-woman shtick.

"i sho don' know nuffin bout no sciience n' shit but i knows new yawk honey Mmmmm Hmmmmm!"

That was Winston's schtick in the first movie, too.  "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say"


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 03, 2016, 05:49:34 PM
That was Winston's schtick in the first movie, too.  "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say"
In the original script, as I understand it, Winston was actually the main character, explaining stuff to him was going to be the excuse for exposition to the audience, a paranormal movie with science and a little humor. Then they decided to dial down the science to 1 and the humor up to 11, and Winston wound up the straight man to Murray, Ackroyd, and Ramis. Actually, Winston is the only major character who never does or says anything stupid (besides keep following the other three into stupid situations).

--Dave


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on March 03, 2016, 07:02:49 PM
Yeah, I never felt like Winston was a "black" character.

Thanks for shitting on my childhood again, fuckwits.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on March 03, 2016, 07:12:09 PM
No matter what we think this will make money.  Anyone not old enough to remember watching the original when it came out doesn't give a crap if it's a reboot. 

I wasn't planning on seeing this in theaters and that trailer didn't change my mind.  Also for those those complaining about Leslie Jones.  That's pretty much her stand-up style, so it's no surprise that's how the character is in the movie.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on March 03, 2016, 09:06:49 PM
Yeah it looks bad. The jokes just seem lazy - an exorcist gag, "AW HELL NAW", etc. They chose the single most obvious joke for each scenario - "that's gonna eave a mark", really? It's like they shot all the scenes with no sound then just ADR'd in the first thing that came to mind. One of the best things about the original movie is how specific some of the humor is, such as in the opening scene, rather than stock gags and familiar one-liners.

Also looked like too much bad CG shit.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Shannow on March 03, 2016, 09:28:35 PM
Holy crap that's bad.

So is Kate Mckinnon trying to be Bill Murray? Whatever she's doing it comes off as one of those really bad SNL skits we get every episode.



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on March 03, 2016, 10:41:31 PM
Online articles about how to discuss the trailer and explain to them why they're wrong are starting to appear.

You'll never guess why you are all wrong for not liking this, and what is behind it.

Okay, you probably all know why you're allegedly wrong and what's causing it due to the massive gloat boner showing through my text.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Khaldun on March 03, 2016, 10:58:40 PM
Relax a little. A bad movie that some feminist or other thinks will be a good movie is not the end of Western Civilization. Nobody's going to break into your hideout with castration equipment because you think the Ghostbusters reboot looks bad.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on March 03, 2016, 11:03:07 PM
Oh please, I'm totally relaxed. The harder they push shit like that the happier I am. Remember, I've been the resident *ist for years now. It pleases me that you all are considered just as bad as me for not finding this trainwreck "adorkable".


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on March 03, 2016, 11:58:30 PM
Oh don't knock yourself down man. We still think you're the worst.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Abagadro on March 04, 2016, 12:33:01 AM
Per Hudson interview that is going around, Winston was originally written for Eddie Murphy and came in at page 8 of the script as one of the main scientists with the others. When he passed it was written down to the "working class guy" coming in at page 38.  Hudson still did quite a bit with the role, but there you go.

As to Murray being quintessential, I would agree but I think that Akroyd, Ramis, and Moranis were also key ingredients that just can't be replicated. Although I like her, I think most of the Weaver stuff in the original film actually dragged it down quite a bit.  I like Paul Feig in general, but I think trying to adapt an existing franchise may have really sucked the life out of his perspective based on the trailer. 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Fabricated on March 04, 2016, 06:55:11 AM
The best thing to do would've just been to make a new IP like Ghostbusters so you don't have the actresses being judged against what is basically one of those "once in a lifetime" combinations of talent that produced a classic.

Also across both movies there is precisely one joke that has anything to do with Winston's race, which is the "I've seen shit that'll turn you WHITE!" joke. Other than that he doesn't shuck and jive, nor is he an idiot. He's as mentioned, the straightman to the rest of the team.

Also I'm seeing stuff mentioning how problematic it is that Jones got cast as the one person with no college education and a blue collar job. There is some internal bloodletting in some other groups of people I follow on twitter. Self-claimed progressive movie critics saying that it really looks like shit and explaining why while Feig's female takes on typically male-cast comedy archtypes turn out well, he seems to have likely fucked up adapting the reboot of a classic movie. And they immediately came under fire from their "friends" for saying so.

To be honest I kinda agree it was kinda stupid/short-sighted to cast Jones as the Winston replacement. If you REALLY insisted on rebooting Ghostbusters the best thing to do is to make new characters and not try to evoke the original cast at all. Now you have NotEgon licking her proton pistols and Jones doing this Maeda-busts-the-ghosts shtick; which makes the comparison to the original even worse.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on March 04, 2016, 07:41:31 AM
It always amazes me to see productions fight to get women in stereotypically male roles but then fall into the WORST type of racial stereotyping. Jones may as well be singing Mammy.

Meanwhile, some people appear to be working hard to say it's not as bad as it comes off.
http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/did-the-ghostbusters-trailer-misrepresent-leslie-jones-as-a-sassy-sidekick

Quote
Andrew Shaffer
‏@andrewtshaffer Andrew Shaffer Retweeted Donna Dickens
FUN FACT: Average salary of an associate professor of physics: $55k. Average salary of an MTA employee: $80k.
https://twitter.com/andrewtshaffer/status/705608854659162112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on March 04, 2016, 09:18:20 AM
The best thing to do would've just been to make

Would've been a comedy with 4 funny people instead of 3 not funny people and 1 marginally funny person.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on March 04, 2016, 09:24:29 AM
The funniest part about anyone saying that we all hate the trailer because it has women in it is that none of the "jokes" in that trailer were things that HAD to have a woman to say them. They were gender neutral jokes - they just weren't funny. Or they might have been funny the first time I saw them, but I've seen them in trailers and movies for 44+ years. Nothing in that trailer brought anything new to those jokes or those approaches. It was like Cheap Comedy Trailer 101.

As for Jones and the racial stereotyping, yes that part bothered me the most. It's the 2k version of Mammy and I'm amazed that anyone would think it wasn't. It might have been funny if one of the white women had said it as a kind of role reversal, but to have that be one of the few big moments in the trailer for the black actress just leaves an impression of "these are the jokes we give the black actor because she's black. Aren't Magical Negroes funny?"


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Amarr HM on March 04, 2016, 10:34:31 AM
At least give the poor girls some decent dialogue, not this muttering under your breath, neurotic Bridesmaids schlock. 

Whats with the gun licking, fuck that, what is she cat woman?

Any remake of any film that starred Bill Murray, that doesn't have Bill Murray recast, should fucking tank. Lets call it Murrays law.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on March 04, 2016, 11:33:37 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0&feature=youtu.be

A random internet person recut the trailer and did more in less than 24 hours what a team of professionals managed in weeks. Hooray Hollywood creative process.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on March 04, 2016, 11:40:05 AM
I still didn't laugh, but it was a HYUGE improvement over the official trailer.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: eldaec on March 04, 2016, 11:45:13 AM
I particularly enjoyed the lack of terrible "As you know, you are good at quantum physics" dialog.

Even the gun licking was bearable.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: 01101010 on March 04, 2016, 11:57:49 AM
Interesting that the shout out to the original in the beginning of the clip, 30 years ago.... 4 scientists saved New York...

IIRC, there were only 3 scientists and Winston was the unemployed blue collar worker. Little thing but still.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: NowhereMan on March 04, 2016, 12:25:14 PM
I still didn't laugh, but it was a HYUGE improvement over the official trailer.

In fairness it also had a lot less dialogue and parts of the film in it. I'm not sure if cutting everything except random bits of action and the visual callbacks improving the trailer is a good indicator of film. You're right that it should make the marketing guys feel bad.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Draegan on March 04, 2016, 02:26:46 PM
Ghosts look terrible.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on March 04, 2016, 03:03:15 PM
Oh don't knock yourself down man. We still think you're the worst.

Oh, I'm sure you do. The point is that to progressives, you're all as bad as me.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: KallDrexx on March 04, 2016, 03:20:21 PM
Quote
Andrew Shaffer
‏@andrewtshaffer Andrew Shaffer Retweeted Donna Dickens
FUN FACT: Average salary of an associate professor of physics: $55k. Average salary of an MTA employee: $80k.
https://twitter.com/andrewtshaffer/status/705608854659162112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Wow they are really reaching if that's the best they could come up with.  It's also clear that someone has no concept of locality of jobs.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on March 04, 2016, 03:29:15 PM
I'm a progressive.

The movie looks terrible, the casting sounds stupid, the dialogue sounds atrocious, it all seems an nonredeemable mess that should have never made it past the green light meeting.

I sure hope someone stops speaking for progressives.  That would be fantastic.

Or someone could continue speaking for the progressives that seem to live only in his head.  That will in no way negatively affect the view anyone else has of someone on these forums.

Nosirreebob.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Trippy on March 04, 2016, 03:50:03 PM
I'll wait for the fan edit that just has the scenes with Kate McKinnon in it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on March 04, 2016, 04:15:32 PM
I'll wait for the fan edit that just has the scenes with Kate McKinnon in it.

Funny because I'll wait for the fan edit that her (and the rest of them) not in it. Maybe someone will just splice the original cast into it and remake Ghostbusters.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 04, 2016, 04:45:11 PM
I'll wait for the fan edit that just has the scenes with Kate McKinnon in it.


Her moments in the trailer were the only ones I enjoyed. That woman likely has a long career ahead of her if this movie doesn't kill it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 04, 2016, 06:11:09 PM
If there is a cut of just Kristen Wiig and McKinnon having pillow fights in the nude, I could probably be persuaded to watch it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on March 04, 2016, 08:22:01 PM
McKinnon having pillow fights in the nude, I could probably be persuaded to watch it.

I couldn't be.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Malakili on March 04, 2016, 08:22:07 PM
If I had only see that fan edit trailer there is a good chance I would have gone to see this. The full trailer is SO much worse.  Netflix four years from now after I've forgotten it even exists and randomly come across it will have to do.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Setanta on March 04, 2016, 10:40:11 PM
Any remake of any film that starred Bill Murray, that doesn't have Bill Murray recast, should fucking tank. Lets call it Murrays law.

Even Bill Murray et.al. didn't make the sequel decent. There was something about the first film that just worked and people shouldn't attempt to replicate that success.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 04, 2016, 11:27:56 PM
Or someone could continue speaking for the progressives that seem to live only in his head.  That will in no way negatively affect the view anyone else has of someone on these forums.
To be fair to Bob (which isn't always easy) they are out there. Bob just spends too much time wallowing in neo-reactionary outrage porn. If you spend your time *looking* for the stuff that will piss you off, it's not hard to be convinced that they are omnipresent.

--Dave


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on March 05, 2016, 03:25:56 PM
I wouldn't buy Leslie Jones as a scientist, even less than I buy the others as scientists.

In Ghostbusters the two main scientist guys (Ray and Egon) actually come off a super smart. I really have trouble believing any of these women as world-class physicists and such (maybe I could buy McKinnon as a goofy Egon type), but especially Jones would be way off. Not because she's black, but because of her entire persona. She is big, loud and crude - that's her shtick.

I do have to laugh at the people who were like "if you dislike ghostbusters you must be sexist" who are now "if you like Ghostbusters you must be racist" and those people definitely do exist.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: pxib on March 05, 2016, 05:22:45 PM
Another problem is that, other than McKinnon, they're all too old.

When Ghostbusters came out in 1984:  Ramis was 40, Hudson was 39, Murray was 34, and Aykroyd was 32. The original three were researchers at Columbia before their funding was cut: Spengler was a professor with Murray and Aykroyd as his postdoc researchers. By the time Ghostbusters II came out five years later, they're making "too old for this" jokes.

McKinnon is 32, but Wiig is 43, McCarthy is 46, and Jones is 49.

There is no shortage of female actors in their 30s who can play Hollywood nerds.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: eldaec on March 05, 2016, 06:28:12 PM
OK, now you're reaching. By my maths thats an average of only 7 years older.

I'm pretty sure that even a mediocre professional actor has sufficient range to play 7 years younger.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Venkman on March 05, 2016, 07:11:39 PM
7 years doesn't sound like a lot until you talk to someone in their early 30s and then again 7 years later. That's a big fucking difference. Probably married/kids/house different, and maybe even startup-sold/corporate-stooge different.

It's not the age. It's the life stage.

In other news, this trailer sucked. The idea of this movie sucked. Don't give me any of this shit about how this movie isn't for fans of the original. That's the only reason this exists. Absent that original and the people still alive who like it, this brand wouldn't be anything worth making a movie for.

It has nothing to do with women/men, blue color/white collar, college educated/high school educated. It's because even the source couldn't be sequeled (II sucked). Some things just can't. Fifth Element II? My Cousin Vinny II? No. Some things just aren't franchises, no matter the creative bankruptcy that allows such thinking to occur.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on March 06, 2016, 09:06:13 AM
Or someone could continue speaking for the progressives that seem to live only in his head.  That will in no way negatively affect the view anyone else has of someone on these forums.
To be fair to Bob (which isn't always easy) they are out there. Bob just spends too much time wallowing in neo-reactionary outrage porn. If you spend your time *looking* for the stuff that will piss you off, it's not hard to be convinced that they are omnipresent.

--Dave

It's not as if you have to dig particularly deep. They've been spouting the same stuff since Occupy Wall Street and doing it on national TV. Nowadays it's actually being reported on directly and the number of people witnessing it for themselves is increasing.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on March 06, 2016, 10:39:51 AM
Or someone could continue speaking for the progressives that seem to live only in his head.  That will in no way negatively affect the view anyone else has of someone on these forums.
To be fair to Bob (which isn't always easy) they are out there. Bob just spends too much time wallowing in neo-reactionary outrage porn. If you spend your time *looking* for the stuff that will piss you off, it's not hard to be convinced that they are omnipresent.

--Dave

Fair enough, I can agree with that.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: eldaec on March 06, 2016, 10:53:19 AM
The problem with ghostbusters 2 (and probably with this) is that they were/are trying to tell the same story again.

They didn't figure out what story hasn't been told, they just reset everything and went again, once you do that it has to be flat out better or nobody cares. I don't believe for a moment it would be impossible to make another watchable ghostbusters film, but they needed to pick a new story.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: apocrypha on March 07, 2016, 01:36:27 AM
Apologies if this somehow turns out to be angry.bob bait  :oh_i_see:

(http://i.imgur.com/RNpSxME.jpg)


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on March 07, 2016, 02:57:41 AM
Yeah, that's what I got from the trailer. It's Madea hunts ghosts.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: NowhereMan on March 07, 2016, 04:10:01 AM
From what I could see in the trailer the new and exciting development is that ghosts can possess people, which will undoubtedly lead to a sexy seduction gone comically wrong type scene with one of the ladies, and there's some conspiracy with someone artificially creating/drawing in ghosts.

Both of those sounds utterly dumb to me although I guess the latter might make some sense (ghosts clearly are affected by technological gizmos, there was a weird mystical human device in 1 so it's not unreasonable that 30 years after ghosts 3 Reallzz!!1 someone would invent something to do the same thing).


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Amarr HM on March 07, 2016, 04:21:55 AM
From what I could see in the trailer the new and exciting development is that ghosts can possess people...

huh :headscratch:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: apocrypha on March 07, 2016, 05:40:44 AM
I'm guessing that entire post was sarcasm.  :grin:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MediumHigh on March 07, 2016, 07:02:45 AM
Remember when I said ghostbusters wasn't a comedy and you all laughed and hur dur "haha medium thinks ghostbusters is dark and gritty".

Well here is your comedy ghostbusters complete with all the unfunny aspects of this era. Enjoy kids.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Velorath on March 07, 2016, 07:21:58 AM
Most of the time when people say "Remember when I said that?" it's when they were eventually proven right about something. I'll give you credit at least for bucking the trend and reminding us of something you said that was, and remains,  batshit insane.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 07, 2016, 08:46:26 AM
Ghostbusters was about as Dark and Gritty as a Microchip Cleanroom.

It was a comedy through and through.  You're still wrong.

I'm not sure I'd call this a comedy as yet.  Still waiting on the GOOOD trailer.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Furiously on March 07, 2016, 09:03:55 AM
Ghostbusters was about as Dark and Gritty as a Microchip Cleanroom.

It was a comedy through and through.  You're still wrong.

I'm not sure I'd call this a comedy as yet.  Still waiting on the GOOOD trailer.   :why_so_serious:

I think you are going to have to wait a long time.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MediumHigh on March 07, 2016, 09:12:25 AM
I'm glad this movie has more in common with 21 jump street.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: 01101010 on March 07, 2016, 09:29:18 AM
But is it a 'Three Stooges' comedy or a 'Marx Brothers' comedy?   :grin:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Furiously on March 07, 2016, 10:19:27 AM
If you have never watched the Frighteners it was an incredible sequel to ghostbusters...


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on March 07, 2016, 10:43:57 AM
Guy on Reddit claims to have seen the 70% copy and gives an awful review:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/493zai/ive_seen_an_early_version_of_the_new_ghostbusters/


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ironwood on March 07, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
OK, I read that.

If true, all hope is gone.  I wouldn't even watch that shit for free.



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on March 07, 2016, 08:44:31 PM
Guy on Reddit claims to have seen the 70% copy and gives an awful review:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/493zai/ive_seen_an_early_version_of_the_new_ghostbusters/
Just like in real life, garbage in, garbage out. Doomed from the word "tweet."


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MediumHigh on March 08, 2016, 12:21:34 AM
But this was the ghostbusters you all wanted.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on March 08, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
No, the Ghostbusters I wanted was made 30 years ago and should have been left alone.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on March 08, 2016, 10:17:25 AM
But this was the ghostbusters you all wanted.   :why_so_serious:
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

nobody sane wanted this


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: eldaec on March 08, 2016, 12:21:35 PM
No, the Ghostbusters I wanted was made 30 years ago and should have been left alone.

To be fair, the Ghostbusters of 30 years ago has been left alone. I mean, nobody physically destroyed the negatives in the process of changing the order in which various characters shot each other, and then refused to let the original ever be published again.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Furiously on March 08, 2016, 06:30:00 PM
I saw today that Strange Brew was coming out soon as well...only they are remastering the original and putting it on blu-Ray. So it might be the best film of 1983 you watch this year.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on March 08, 2016, 06:37:29 PM
I saw today that Strange Brew was coming out soon as well...only they are remastering the original and putting it on blu-Ray. So it might be the best film of 1983 you watch this year.
Bob and Doug for the win.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on March 09, 2016, 06:09:46 AM
To be fair, this wasnt as bad as I though it was going to be.

It was even worse.

I watched it on the Angry Joe review, and I kept looking at his face while watching it and his looks of horror I imagine matched my own expressions.

Some interesting comments on the Plot synopsis above https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/493zai/ive_seen_an_early_version_of_the_new_ghostbusters/

Quote
There's also stuff in there about trying to sue Bill Murray into doing a cameo

Sony has no shame


[–]CoSonfused 7 points 2 days ago

Really?

[–]MetalOrgy 5 points 2 days ago

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704 (https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704)

[–]AsmundGudrod 24 points 2 days ago

    In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on “Ghostbusters”, AG requested that we identify “aggressive” litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize.

wow....................


[–]puzzleddaily 7 points 1 day ago

Holy fuck. That explains that!

[–]SchottGun 3 points 13 hours ago

I wonder if that is how they got the rest of them to come back. IIRC Earnie Hudson said he didn't think this movie would work, then all of a sudden he changed his tune and is in the movie.

When your movie is so bad you have to threaten to SUE people if they refuse to be in it and get a paycheck...

Quote
To be fair there IS a Ghostbusters 3. It's the Atari published video-game (it's on Steam still if you PC Game). It was written and voiced by the original crew. It continues the storyline after GB2. You play a voiceless new recruit and the whole game feels amazing. It has throwbacks to the first two movies and rolls with the comedy. It's very fun to play and the story is absolutely top notch.

[–]rufio_vega 7 points 2 days ago

Rookie even appears in the IDW comic, which is set in the same continuity as the original movies and game.

[–]tiberseptim37 4 points 19 hours ago

It helps that Ramis and Aykroyd punched up the script, and all four original GBs reprised their roles, complete with in-game likenesses.

I didnt know that. TO STEAM FORTHWITH!!



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Paelos on March 09, 2016, 08:39:19 AM
Yeah, that's what I got from the trailer. It's Madea hunts ghosts.

Wow, that's pretty apt. Good call.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: 01101010 on March 09, 2016, 09:42:58 AM
The original was a great stand alone movie. Sadly, it came at a time when Hollywood was milking movies of all the cash they could by extending the life of them too long with sequels. GB2 was a shell of a movie and IMHO was horrible. Ghostbusters did not need a sequel, much less a reboot. This just reeks of a film industry devoid of original ideas. Occasionally one will pop up here and there, but for the most part... it has been just shit year after year.

I won't be shocked if most of my favorite movies from the 80s get rebooted... Fletch, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Fast Times, Goonies, Gremlins... plenty of them to bastardize.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on March 09, 2016, 10:12:16 AM
The industry is not devoid of original ideas any more than books, music, games, or any creative industry. The problem is, much like games, the investment to create makes the people fronting the money risk-averse.

It's a goddamned oroborus of "This is too expensive, I need to get involved; oh shit that didn't do well, it was clearly the idea. Let's go back to the well of ideas that worked. Only bigger, with more budget! Wait, now it's too expensive..."

Everything must do better year-over-year. This has lead to blockbusters. Then bigger blockbusters. Then MEGA SPECTACALES with over-the-top scenes and multi-franchise deals. The consequence is that things have gotten far, far too expensive to make. Smaller budgets, more reasonable and able to take risks and you'd see more creativity. Though then that creativity would ballooon out.

If the cycle continues, you can predict Deadpool 2 will suck, because the studio will throw TOO much money at it and start to meddle.

Then tack on that 90% of everything is crap. Even back in the "golden days" of movies this was true. The difference was there were more being made. You have to make fewer movies when they have larger budgets.. so that 90% rule is going to fuck what seems to be a lot more pictures.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on March 09, 2016, 11:05:50 AM
The "got to be bigger" is the real problem. Movies have always had budgets bigger than they need to be, and guys like Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith in the '90's proved that. None of their best movies were made with any sort of budget whatsoever, especially in comparison to similar movies in similar genres. El Mariachi and Desperado were made for a combined total of less than most big-name actors make for doing one movie and are both insanely good action movies, IMO.

Then Hollywood got CGI and suddenly no idea was un-filmable. And very few directors have been able to make good movies with no constraints whatsoever because self-editing is the hardest thing for any creative to do. And Hollywood's risk-aversion has come down to making fewer movies with bigger budgets in sure-thing genres as opposed to lots of movies with smaller, tighter budgets but diversified genres. This movie has $150 million budget. Let that sink in for a minute. The original had a $30 million budget (which is about $72 million in 2015 dollars). So we now have a movie that spend twice as much as the original to make. Why? Why couldn't this have been made for half that? Comedies, even effects heavy comedies, don't need that much of a budget.

The Hangover had a $35 million budget and made almost half a billion dollars. The Hangover 2 had an $80 million budget and made over half a billion. Yes, they didn't have the effects budget that Ghostbusters CGI ghosts probably required, but the stars probably got paid a good bit more than they did for the first (because they weren't stars when the first was made). So then Hollywood decided we needed Hangover 3 with a budget of $103 million (more star money) and yet that one only made $362 million.

Learning the proper budgets for movies appears to be a retrograde process in Hollywood. Success seems to breed failure.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Paelos on March 09, 2016, 12:50:31 PM
They really should remake the Goonies. It's been 30 years, and it could be updated to a more modern setting without losing the story.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: 01101010 on March 09, 2016, 01:32:19 PM
They really should remake the Goonies. It's been 30 years, and it could be updated to a more modern setting without losing the story.

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Rendakor on March 09, 2016, 01:40:46 PM
They really should remake the Goonies. It's been 30 years, and it could be updated to a more modern setting without losing the story.
Fuck that.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Trippy on March 09, 2016, 01:51:52 PM
International trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Y4au79xt0


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Paelos on March 09, 2016, 01:57:23 PM
They really should remake the Goonies. It's been 30 years, and it could be updated to a more modern setting without losing the story.
Fuck that.

Why not? There's nothing about that story that makes it impossible to update to today.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on March 09, 2016, 02:02:33 PM
They really should remake the Goonies. It's been 30 years, and it could be updated to a more modern setting without losing the story.
Fuck that.

Why not? There's nothing about that story that makes it impossible to update to today.

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/the-goonies-2-is-coming-chris-columbus-calls-sequel-difficult-2015207


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Mandella on March 09, 2016, 02:23:10 PM
.

Quote
To be fair there IS a Ghostbusters 3. It's the Atari published video-game (it's on Steam still if you PC Game). It was written and voiced by the original crew. It continues the storyline after GB2. You play a voiceless new recruit and the whole game feels amazing. It has throwbacks to the first two movies and rolls with the comedy. It's very fun to play and the story is absolutely top notch.

[–]rufio_vega 7 points 2 days ago

Rookie even appears in the IDW comic, which is set in the same continuity as the original movies and game.

[–]tiberseptim37 4 points 19 hours ago

It helps that Ramis and Aykroyd punched up the script, and all four original GBs reprised their roles, complete with in-game likenesses.

I didnt know that. TO STEAM FORTHWITH!!



IIRC, this was the only sequel/reboot that Murray himself was excited about. I have no idea how well it sold though...


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on March 09, 2016, 04:41:47 PM
International trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Y4au79xt0


Ok well that was better. It made a lot more sense and we actually got to see what Chris Hemsworth brought to the table. The part with Leslie Jones and the stage-diving thing doesn't really improve the "this is a racial sterrotype character" but it was at least funnier and more inventive than "AWW HELL NAW!"

Still not that interesting though.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on March 09, 2016, 08:34:13 PM
In this film is that 80s ghostbusters cannon? The opening text would seem to imply yes, but cameos by the actors playing different roles would seem to imply no.

The international trailer seems to confirm a bunch of stuff in that reddit post. Welp.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 09, 2016, 10:39:58 PM
In this film is that 80s ghostbusters cannon? The opening text would seem to imply yes, but cameos by the actors playing different roles would seem to imply no.

The international trailer seems to confirm a bunch of stuff in that reddit post. Welp.

From the leaked sources all of the cameos from the original cast are different characters, Murray's cameo character even dies.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on May 17, 2016, 02:47:37 PM
The "I refuse to watch" review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8X2A7wHyQ&feature=youtu.be

No idea if this guy is a relevant YouTuber or not, he makes a better argument against the movie than 99% of the yelling internet idiots, though.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on May 17, 2016, 03:43:12 PM
Not sure why "I refuse to watch because the US trailer was ass" isn't a valid reason, but whatevs.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on May 17, 2016, 05:11:57 PM
Not sure why "I refuse to watch because the US trailer was ass" isn't a valid reason, but whatevs.  :why_so_serious:

The only thing with trailers is that the directors usually don't have any hand in it.  It's usually handled by the marketing people that just put shit up to grab your attention.

I am not saying this won't be shit though.   It's main drawback is them mucking with Ghostbusters.  The cast, writers, and director aren't known for putting out terrible films overall.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: satael on May 18, 2016, 01:24:48 AM
The "I refuse to watch" review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8X2A7wHyQ&feature=youtu.be

No idea if this guy is a relevant YouTuber or not, he makes a better argument against the movie than 99% of the yelling internet idiots, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi5CsnHoJ1s&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi5CsnHoJ1s&feature=youtu.be)  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Fabricated on May 18, 2016, 05:30:18 AM
The "I refuse to watch" review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8X2A7wHyQ&feature=youtu.be

No idea if this guy is a relevant YouTuber or not, he makes a better argument against the movie than 99% of the yelling internet idiots, though.
Just fyi there are a bunch of people who're really mad at this guy over this video and say he's just being sexist.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on May 18, 2016, 05:37:15 AM
If that's sexism then god help us. He barely mentioned that they were women.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Malakili on May 18, 2016, 06:00:37 AM
Is that guy the angry nintendo nerd all grown up? Looks and sounds like him but I didn't feel like googling him.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on May 18, 2016, 07:19:45 AM
The "I refuse to watch" review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8X2A7wHyQ&feature=youtu.be

No idea if this guy is a relevant YouTuber or not, he makes a better argument against the movie than 99% of the yelling internet idiots, though.
Just fyi there are a bunch of people who're really mad at this guy over this video and say he's just being sexist.

On what grounds? Sounds like people who should be ignored.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on May 18, 2016, 12:46:24 PM
If that's sexism then god help us. He barely mentioned that they were women.

 :uhrr: :pedobear:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on May 18, 2016, 02:06:13 PM
The only segment that I recall him talking about their womanness was when he said people might regard this as the "female" ghost-busters as opposed to the male. And that was right after him raging that forever the original movie will have a preface that it would be the 1984 GB and this would be the 2016 one. Other than that he raged about the effects, marketing, lack of the original guys, etc.

IF he spoke about their ladyness at other places please enlighten me.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 18, 2016, 02:38:42 PM
New trailer, still lame.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on May 18, 2016, 02:49:14 PM
Slight improvement over the last one, with at least 2 funny bits (both from Leslie Jones). Still not seeing much to justify all the pixels being dedicated to it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 18, 2016, 04:26:54 PM
Still looking forward to not seeing this.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Kail on May 18, 2016, 04:30:01 PM
Is that guy the angry nintendo nerd all grown up? Looks and sounds like him but I didn't feel like googling him.

Yeah, that's him.  He's still doing the AVGN thing, too, but not as much these days (like two videos per year or so).


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lemming on May 18, 2016, 07:13:40 PM
The only improvement I saw in the new trailer was that it explained the movie a touch better.  I wish I could laugh at any of the jokes, but they all felt forced or just fell flat to me.  I didn't even crack a smile, and I'm pretty easy to please.  Obviously this is my opinion, but this movie looks like garbage.  Hopefully the people who made the trailers are just complete idiots and showed us all the bad parts of the movie.  That said, the trailers were bad enough on their own to convince me to stay out of the theaters.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on May 18, 2016, 07:30:03 PM
It doesn't look bad, but it doesn't look good.  I think that's the main problem.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on May 19, 2016, 01:31:05 AM
I disagree - it looks bad. The jokes aren't funny and in some cases don't even make sense. The CGI is really lame looking as well.

I meant - it's not "A Haunted House 2" bad (this is a real movie!), but it looks bad.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Cyrrex on May 19, 2016, 03:42:54 AM
I actually thought this movie had already come out, had been not watched and ultimately forgotten.  So we still have this to not look forward to?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Hutch on May 19, 2016, 08:22:40 AM
Well, we can look forward to going to a theater and not seeing the trailer for this  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on May 19, 2016, 10:22:15 PM
The latest trailer isn't... awful.  It does seem to try to lean very heavily on the first, without really evoking the humor of the first movie.

I still have no real desire to see it in theaters, but I'm sure it'll end up on my television at some point.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 20, 2016, 10:05:01 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/K8Ls8gd.jpg)

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: luckton on May 20, 2016, 01:52:52 PM
The Intl. Trailer they just cut actually seems to be improving things.

https://twitter.com/SonyPicturesUK/status/733645597635313664

Third time's the charm, IMO.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: VainEldritch on May 20, 2016, 04:54:45 PM
The Intl. Trailer they just cut actually seems to be improving things.

https://twitter.com/SonyPicturesUK/status/733645597635313664

Third time's the charm, IMO.

Nope - still shite of the most noxious kind. This manner of creeping acceptance for second-rate donkey smegma reboots will drop our "society" lower than whale shit. Stop it.   


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Trippy on May 20, 2016, 09:36:29 PM
I do like that one better than the US version but it still doesn't make me want to see the movie.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Segoris on May 20, 2016, 11:49:38 PM
The Intl. Trailer they just cut actually seems to be improving things.

https://twitter.com/SonyPicturesUK/status/733645597635313664

Third time's the charm, IMO.

Holy shit, that's still awful.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on May 21, 2016, 12:47:48 AM
It looks better in that I smiled once or twice. Still bad though.

That phone joke is an example of why I don't like this movie, or at least the trailers. I get that the male receptionist guy is supposed to be very stupid, but the joke relies on him not being able to tell where a sound is coming from rather than stupidity. If there was a working phone right behind the one in the fish tank it would make sense. But the premise of this joke is "this guy is so dumb that he, um, also doesn't have directional hearing?"

A lot of the jokes are a combination of lazy and under-thought. The joke at the start of the trailer is another example of this - it feels like a rough draft version.

I know people like to say that Spy had bad trailers and was good, but I thought the trailers for Spy were fine.

Also I hate women.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on May 22, 2016, 06:50:36 PM
The Intl. Trailer they just cut actually seems to be improving things.

https://twitter.com/SonyPicturesUK/status/733645597635313664

Third time's the charm, IMO.

They fucked up the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. They fucked up the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on May 22, 2016, 06:57:36 PM
The Intl. Trailer they just cut actually seems to be improving things.

https://twitter.com/SonyPicturesUK/status/733645597635313664

Third time's the charm, IMO.

They fucked up the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. They fucked up the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

That's not supposed to be Stay Puft.  That's the ghost from the Ghostbusters logo.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Mac on May 23, 2016, 03:12:34 AM
Ok, that last trailer was much better but still only mediocre because I just can't stop hating women.

*runs off to downvote shit on IMDB*


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on May 23, 2016, 04:34:47 PM
The Intl. Trailer they just cut actually seems to be improving things.

https://twitter.com/SonyPicturesUK/status/733645597635313664

Third time's the charm, IMO.

Holy shit, that's still awful.

Yeah, I didn't bother watching until just now. Not only is the trailer not any funnier, the effects haven't improved either. That's something they COULD fix.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on May 23, 2016, 09:54:48 PM
Ok, Didn't bother watching till now. Uh... the 30 year old effects are argubly better thooking than this. Though I thought the Ghostbusters sign monster looked pretty good.

Um... IT LOOKS FUCKING TERRIBLE. Sorry my sexism had to burst out there.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Phildo on May 24, 2016, 09:15:55 AM
I still think the ghosts look like the ones from the live action Scooby Doo movies.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2016, 09:43:38 AM
They do, they really, really do. You can tell some executive said, "Higher resolution, crisp images are better CGI! They also need to GLOW make them more electric-colors! Oh, but not too much detail because they're ghosts... "

Blah.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 30, 2016, 01:36:10 PM
Apparently most of us are just friendless trolls (http://komonews.com/news/entertainment/melissa-mccarthy-on-anti-ghostbusters-trolls-i-just-hope-they-find-a-friend).

How about you write an original movie? Or if you are going to steal an idea, how about making it remotely amusing? I was indifferent to this movie, now I want it to fail so hard I never see MM again. Seriously, fuck her.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on May 30, 2016, 02:33:50 PM
Yup. Crash and burn, bitch.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on May 30, 2016, 07:33:50 PM
Has there ever been another movie where the marketing was centered around "if you don't like or don't watch this movie you must be a bad person"?

I mean...this isn't An Inconvenient Truth, it's fucking Ghostbusters. It's not like it's your duty as a progressive member of society to sit your ass in a seat and watch a popcorn Hollywood film.

To me it's just so unbelievably cynical. What next? "If you don't watch Big Bang Theory you're racist"?

Fuck this movie.



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Venkman on May 30, 2016, 08:05:26 PM
The latest trailer didn't suck as much as the prior two. But every time I watch any trailer or see any image, I ask why can't they just update the special effects in the original?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Surlyboi on May 30, 2016, 10:19:26 PM
And the marketing for the movie wasn't really centered around, "If you don't like it, you're a bad person", until the shit-stirrers came out of the woodwork en-masse after the first trailer.

This movie will probably suck but Jesus, the hate has been on overdrive since day fucking one.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 30, 2016, 11:52:57 PM
And the marketing for the movie wasn't really centered around, "If you don't like it, you're a bad person", until the shit-stirrers came out of the woodwork en-masse after the first trailer.

This movie will probably suck but Jesus, the hate has been on overdrive since day fucking one.
Funny how it just worked out like that. How the discussion is no longer about how the the trailers (which really should be the best parts) make it look like the CGI sucks, the jokes are flat, and the characters are cardboard.

Now it is about how a certain segment of the objections are blatantly sexist. Almost cartoonishly and incoherently. As if someone was picking out the worst examples, and ignoring everything else. And why do we know this? Who decided to call our attention to the mouthbreathers?

Yeah. Funny how that worked out.

--Dave


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on May 31, 2016, 04:34:53 AM
The new journalism is finding the 3 people on earth who have decided to boycott Mad Max because it has women in it and making that national news about a disturbing "trend." It's the equivalent of how the media used to report on those dick-sucking-with-different-colored-lipstick parties that they pretended kids were all into for a while, but online.




Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on June 03, 2016, 08:48:56 PM
Apparently we have lots of Trump supporters in this thread.   :awesome_for_real: (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/entertainment/judd-apatow-ghostbusters-trump/index.html?sr=fbCNN060316judd-apatow-ghostbusters-trump0528PMStoryGalLink&linkId=25177479)


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on June 04, 2016, 09:41:41 AM
I dislike everything I've heard about the new Ghostbusters because it sounds like a gimmicky retread of a movie that really doesn't need a gimmicky retread, and largely worked because of Harold Ramis' writing.  This is a terrible idea, and it's likely to be utterly awful.

The previews they have shown have done the movie no favors.  The first two were awful in terms of trying to ge me to see the movie, and the third one was passable.  I'll eagerly await feedback, and if it's actually a good movie, I'll probably go see it.

I've seen, heard, or read very little to indicate it will be a good movie.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on June 05, 2016, 01:15:33 AM
I honestly can't recall the last time a "major" motion picture cast and crew went on attack mode like this against people who said, "Yo, your trailer looks like indie shit that shouldn't have seen the light of day."

Fucks sake. Even Affleck and Jlo owned the shitfest that was Gigli.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it'll be great. So far there is no indication that it will, and fuck them for doing schoolyard bullshit to try and defend it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on June 05, 2016, 01:34:42 AM
Even if it is great it's no excuse for their extended temper tantrum.

Right now people can only judge based on the trailers. The point of the trailers is to sell movies and these trailers look bad. That's still on them.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on June 05, 2016, 02:57:56 AM
Even if it is great it's no excuse for their extended temper tantrum.

Right now people can only judge based on the trailers. The point of the trailers is to sell movies and these trailers look bad. That's still on them.

^


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Goreschach on June 05, 2016, 09:07:59 AM
Even if it is great it's no excuse for their extended temper tantrum.

Right now people can only judge based on the trailers.

Not anymore.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 05, 2016, 05:24:53 PM
The trailers looked awful. That said, the mouth-breathing gamergate/mens rights people did come out of the woodwork and attack them. Yes, they're focusing on that in their replies but that's probably because those people are the most vocal and get the most attention. There is tons to dislike in the trailers I've seen, not least of which is the writing just seems very uninspired and is recycling jokes from the 90s (at the latest!) but trying to pretend a significant portion of the backlash isn't because of the recent misogynistic trends we've seen online is a bit silly.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on June 05, 2016, 05:47:00 PM
The trailers looked awful. That said, the mouth-breathing gamergate/mens rights people did come out of the woodwork and attack them. Yes, they're focusing on that in their replies but that's probably because those people are the most vocal and get the most attention. There is tons to dislike in the trailers I've seen, not least of which is the writing just seems very uninspired and is recycling jokes from the 90s (at the latest!) but trying to pretend a significant portion of the backlash isn't because of the recent misogynistic trends we've seen online is a bit silly.

Oh please...

At this point everyone involved in this baby killing clusterfuck is looking for a believable scapegoat for after release. When this thing tanks I wonder how they're going to translate online "misogyny" into real life empty seats.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on June 06, 2016, 03:25:02 AM
Its not like there haven't been other movies with female leads that have done well, such as "Thelma and Louise", so claiming that THIS movie is failing becasue it ran into the glass ceiling is pretty stupid. That ceiling is well and truly in pieces and ground into a fine powder.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 06, 2016, 03:18:33 PM
Its not like there haven't been other movies with female leads that have done well, such as "Thelma and Louise", so claiming that THIS movie is failing becasue it ran into the glass ceiling is pretty stupid. That ceiling is well and truly in pieces and ground into a fine powder.

Don't get me wrong, this movie looks like it is going to fail because it just doesn't look like a very good movie. But to try to pretend the online backlash doesn't have a significant misogynistic component to it is silly.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 06, 2016, 05:13:07 PM
The misogynistic narrative was spun the moment casting was announced.  From the very beginning the most complaints were always about the movie shitting on nostalgia and the 'gimmick' of this one having an all female cast and that got turned into the "hordes of neckbeards are against women" narrative but it was never the case. 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2016, 05:16:06 PM
Unfortunately, all the Internet's worst MRA shitgoblins who DID shit all over the movie for the gimmicky all-women casting have made it so that they have a ready made excuse for why this movie failed - i.e. it's misogny and not a boring, mediocre set of trailers or what I assume will be at best lukewarm word-of-mouth.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 06, 2016, 05:48:21 PM
There are always shitgoblins, acknowledging them just encourages them. We've been through this before.

--Dave


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on June 23, 2016, 11:54:54 PM
Fallout Boy and Missy Elliot redo the Ghostbusters song. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AQ44nPrRTM)

I think it's awful. 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on June 24, 2016, 12:56:10 AM
Holy fuck. Was the logo the only thing they got right on this fuckfest?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on June 24, 2016, 01:26:02 AM
I like Missy Elliot but WHAT IN THE UNHOLY NAME OF MONKEY FUCK WAS THAT NU METAL WUBDUB WANKERY?

EDIT: Ok the little bit of Missy Elliot rap was ok, but it was wrapped in a shit burrito of shitty shit shit shit.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: angry.bob on June 24, 2016, 01:31:28 AM
Man. If you've heard one Fallout Boy song you really have heard them all.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Abagadro on June 24, 2016, 01:54:52 AM
You do NOT mess with a plagiarized Huey Lewis song. I mean, WTF.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: shiznitz on June 27, 2016, 02:52:21 PM
Fallout Boy and Missy Elliot redo the Ghostbusters song. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AQ44nPrRTM)

I think it's awful. 

Unwatchable movie and unlistenable theme song.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on June 27, 2016, 02:59:39 PM
Man. If you've heard one Fallout Boy song you really have heard them all.

Naw. Early Fallout Boy and late Fallout Boy are wildly different. Fallout Boy has shifted far closer to Panic! At the Disco and the latter has shifted towards Fallout Boy in their last few efforts.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on July 08, 2016, 08:19:29 AM
haha

http://pagesix.com/2016/07/07/ghostbusters-toys-are-already-on-the-clearance-rack/


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Amarr HM on July 08, 2016, 09:09:57 AM
Quote from: Ivan Reitman
“It’s not so much that the trailer was bad. The trailer was fine. It just can’t stand up to more than 25 years of personal experience”

No way bro, 25 years later and I still enjoy the original franchise. Or does he mean 25 years of female rejection has brought it to this  :headscratch:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on July 10, 2016, 01:13:25 PM
Lots and lots of "it's not THAT bad" reviews coming out today. I don't know that damning with faint praise is much better than a shitstorm of negativity.

That said, the review I watched on YouTube gave me enough eyeroll material that I won't be happy when my wife drags me to the theater next week.



Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on July 11, 2016, 01:45:14 AM
A lot of the reviews read like "I wanted to call this movie mediocre, but I don't want the trolls to win, so instead I'll say it's passable."

In the end it sounds like a lot of the stuff we get these days - warmed-over content, callbacks and fanservice, bigger set pieces and more CGI with less wit, etc. Basically exactly what you would expect from "what if Ghostbusters was a summer blockbuster?", or more generally "what if we revived this old property for no reason other than that we are risk averse and any known IP feels like a safer bet than something new?"

Like the GI Joe movies, turtles movies, new Jurassic Park, new ID4, etc etc etc.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 11, 2016, 03:45:28 AM


Like the GI Joe movies, turtles movies, new Jurassic Park, new ID4, etc etc etc.

It was always going to be this.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on July 11, 2016, 11:29:03 AM
A lot of the reviews read like "I wanted to call this movie mediocre, but I don't want the trolls to win, so instead I'll say it's passable."

In the end it sounds like a lot of the stuff we get these days - warmed-over content, callbacks and fanservice, bigger set pieces and more CGI with less wit, etc. Basically exactly what you would expect from "what if Ghostbusters was a summer blockbuster?", or more generally "what if we revived this old property for no reason other than that we are risk averse and any known IP feels like a safer bet than something new?"

Like the GI Joe movies, turtles movies, new Jurassic Park, new ID4, etc etc etc.

It's all designed for foreign rubes. Less/dumber dialogue + more CGI = easier to translate, dub, or follow in english for people who don't understand it very well. Look at that piece of crap new Robocop movie they made, just awful and flopped in the USA but did $250 million worldwide. Doesn't matter if the movie sucks if it still packs the house in Egypt, India, the Phillipines, etc. Going to have to stop getting excited about blockbusters, because this global model is the new norm.

The good news is that there's a market opportunity for more sophisticated movies aimed at English speaking audiences. Technology has also brought down technical production and editing costs so you can get high quality cinematography even on TV shows now so that lowers the capital barrier of entry for producers and directors looking to make stuff like this.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 11, 2016, 11:55:18 AM
Considering Chinese laws about depictions of skeletons I wonder if all the ghosts look remarkably vibrant and non-dead.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on July 11, 2016, 06:18:25 PM
Considering Chinese laws about depictions of skeletons I wonder if all the ghosts look remarkably vibrant and non-dead.

Holy shit.

They do, to the point of Neon-colored hilarity. You must not have been watching any of the trailers. That would explain why such awful effects have been used.

I wonder if we're also going to get a China-pandering character or scene like all the other recent blockbusters have had.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on July 11, 2016, 06:28:15 PM
All big budget movies are pandering to China now.  They are major movie bucks.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on July 12, 2016, 01:06:10 AM
They do, to the point of Neon-colored hilarity. You must not have been watching any of the trailers. That would explain why such awful effects have been used.

I wonder if we're also going to get a China-pandering character or scene like all the other recent blockbusters have had.

In the Chinese cut Leslie Jone's character is entirely replaced with a Chinese actress with different lines like "supplies motherfuckers" and "the power of Wing Chun compels you."

In all seriousness, I really hate the trend of China pandering. It's a financial incentive to make movies dumb as shit surface-level spectacles.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: eldaec on July 12, 2016, 04:39:33 AM
While I agree, it makes a change from old style US market pandering, which used to happen on a much more fundamental levl, moving entire stories to america and giving lead characters US citizenship. That sort of thing happens far less often now.

Token characters represent significant progress.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Azazel on July 12, 2016, 06:38:29 AM
While I agree, it makes a change from old style US market pandering, which used to happen on a much more fundamental levl, moving entire stories to america and giving lead characters US citizenship. That sort of thing happens far less often now.

(https://resizing.flixster.com/eFNLF83-HHRGv2PtCM7oFM0NZSc=/206x305/v1.bTsxMTIwNDI1MTtqOzE3MDk0OzEyMDA7MTE3OTsxNTcy) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e1/Argo2012Poster.jpg/220px-Argo2012Poster.jpg)

Fuck yeah.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: jgsugden on July 12, 2016, 09:43:30 AM
If you build something for too broad of an audience, it doesn't serve any audience well. 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on July 12, 2016, 09:45:41 AM
Maybe the reduction of American jingoism can be called progress in one area of superficial aesthetics, the accompanying dumbing down of dialogue and addition of large amounts of over the top CGI is a much bigger step backwards.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: eldaec on July 12, 2016, 10:30:13 AM
Fwiw, and although I never watched it, the one that annoyed me most was Matilda. You do not fuck with Roald Dahl.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Tale on July 12, 2016, 06:20:24 PM
Metacritic has no time for obsessively sexist bullshit.

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnLu5VfW8AEUW9a.jpg)


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on July 12, 2016, 06:43:42 PM
While I agree, it makes a change from old style US market pandering, which used to happen on a much more fundamental levl, moving entire stories to america and giving lead characters US citizenship. That sort of thing happens far less often now.

Token characters represent significant progress.

The thing about China pandering is not only does it consist of adding Chinese characters and having set pieces in China, it also consists of dumbing down the plot, characters, dialog, etc, so that the film can be easily translated into different languages and basically understood with the sound off.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on July 12, 2016, 08:12:43 PM
Richard Roeper reviews Ghostbusters. (http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/)

Lol.. the first two words of the article are "So bad."


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on July 12, 2016, 09:29:30 PM
Woof.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on July 12, 2016, 09:51:47 PM
Woof.
Going to assume this a response to the fact the 4 leads are busted in every sense of the word.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on July 12, 2016, 10:02:25 PM
LOL. Nope, just how bad that review was. Though yeah, to be sexist for a second... yeah.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on July 12, 2016, 10:53:51 PM
Wow. Eviscerated isn't the right word, but I'm having trouble coming up with a suitable replacement.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sky on July 12, 2016, 10:54:57 PM
While I agree, it makes a change from old style US market pandering, which used to happen on a much more fundamental levl, moving entire stories to america and giving lead characters US citizenship. That sort of thing happens far less often now.  
Hey, how are ya?

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2097880.1422641651!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/agfa-2.jpg)


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 13, 2016, 04:44:15 PM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-denied-release-china-910563 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-denied-release-china-910563)

Looks like they tried real hard to make it palatable to the Chinese audience but it's funny cause they think America is sexist for not wanting this movie but it looks like China doesn't even wanna show it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ginaz on July 13, 2016, 06:46:55 PM
I mentioned this before, but apparently everyone who doesn't like this new Ghostbusters is a Trump supporter according to Judd Apatow.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/entertainment/judd-apatow-ghostbusters-trump/index.html


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on July 13, 2016, 07:59:49 PM
I mentioned this before, but apparently everyone who doesn't like this new Ghostbusters is a Trump supporter according to Judd Apatow.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/entertainment/judd-apatow-ghostbusters-trump/index.html

Clinton should just go pack her bags then.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 13, 2016, 09:08:41 PM
Debated with myself whether to post this, since for a variety of reasons it's a perfect storm of Due Wrong troll fodder...but what the hell:

Why the new 'Ghostbusters' is Gamergate's worst nightmare (http://www.dailydot.com/parsec/ghostbusters-gamergate-critical-review-crisis/)

Quote
This last week has been tough for Gamergate. As overwhelmingly positive reviews for the Ghostbusters reboot come out, Gamergate knows who’s to blame: Corrupt journalists, just like the last time. “Sony has been accused of astroturfing and paying for good reviews!” exclaims one Gamergater. “Ideology over honesty. The Polygon story,” complains another.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a 61 score on Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ghostbusters-2016/critic-reviews) is not 'overwhelmingly positive'. The 25 of the above link has lots of company in the 40-50 range. Apparently if you don't like Ghostbusters, it's because you have a hate for women disguised as a concern for ethics in gaming journamalism. And a lot of film reviewers apparently have secret GG ties.

--Dave


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Rendakor on July 13, 2016, 09:51:28 PM
It's at 75% on Rotten Tomatoes, which scares me as I was intending to use "But it got awful reviews!" as my excuse to the wife to avoid seeing it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 13, 2016, 10:18:23 PM
It's at 75% on Rotten Tomatoes, which scares me as I was intending to use "But it got awful reviews!" as my excuse to the wife to avoid seeing it.

All the good reviews are "Well, it wasn't terrible"


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on July 13, 2016, 10:39:05 PM
It's at 75% on Rotten Tomatoes, which scares me as I was intending to use "But it got awful reviews!" as my excuse to the wife to avoid seeing it.

Rotten Tomatoes was bought by Fandango.  I wouldn't trust their ranking system for shit anymore.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on July 14, 2016, 02:46:20 AM
I feel sorry for people who think that GamerGate is behind everything or some sort of all-powerful force in the universe comparable to gravity. Imagine being that dumb.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Khaldun on July 14, 2016, 09:29:03 AM
Well, or "GamerGaters" who think the entire world is conspiring against them. There is plenty of dumb to go around.

I'm not entirely sure btw that the proposition that films are stripped of all nuance or made very simplistic just to appeal to the Chinese market (for ease of translation) really holds up if you think about blockbusters from the 1980s onward. Top Gun, for example, wasn't exactly full of narrative complexity or intricate dialogue. I do think there are pandering gestures that a lot of studios are inserting into films, and I'm sure that with something like Ghostbusters, knowing that the peculiar obsession of current Chinese censors with forbidding ghosts, the supernatural, etc. is a major issue and in some cases might kill a script or a pitch for a particular film.

I certainly don't feel any interest in this film myself, even with the lukewarm reviews. It just feels like a mess.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Threash on July 14, 2016, 11:00:46 AM
haha

http://pagesix.com/2016/07/07/ghostbusters-toys-are-already-on-the-clearance-rack/

Yeah, this isn't surprising.  It doesn't even have to do anything with how bad the movie is or isn't.  Girls don't buy action figures, boys don't play with female toys.  This is why GI Joe only had like 5 female figures out of like 400 and why the only time anyone gives a shit that there aren't any Black Widow toys is when internet feminists find out about it.  There is zero demand for female action figures, make a ghostbuster barbie if you must.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on July 14, 2016, 11:23:04 AM
Not entirely true. Rey was and is in high-demand on the Star Wars figures side of things, so at least some portion is how important that character is to the story.

Ghostbusters figures never sold well to begin with and parent's aren't going to buy non-trendy toys for their kids.

That aside, Target also said it was a mistake in their inventory process.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Threash on July 14, 2016, 11:41:52 AM
Star Wars figures are bought out by neckbeard collectors before any children can get near them.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Khaldun on July 14, 2016, 12:04:19 PM
I would guess that the collectors' market for action figures is now considerably bigger than the mass market for kids. It just isn't what most kids want at this point, male or female. So the people who complain that there's no Black Widow have a point: the collectors, even men, will probably buy it if it's well-designed. Catwoman figures sell to collectors well ahead of many other Batman-mythos figures, and it isn't just horny nerds fueling that.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on July 14, 2016, 02:32:00 PM
And now Rotten Tomatoes has this as "certified fresh".  This is the movie that Fandango wants to burn the credibility of Rotten Tomatoes on?  Really, guys?

Quote
Movies and TV shows are Certified Fresh with a steady Tomatometer of 75% or higher after a set amount of reviews (80 for wide-release movies, 40 for limited-release movies, 20 for TV shows), including 5 reviews from Top Critics.

I will be seeing this tomorrow, as I cannot dissuade the wife from seeing what looks to be an utter disaster of a movie.  If it is terrible, I sit for 105 minutes, and have something to tease her about for the next 30 years.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 14, 2016, 02:42:01 PM
And now Rotten Tomatoes has this as "certified fresh".  This is the movie that Fandango wants to burn the credibility of Rotten Tomatoes on?  Really, guys?

Quote
Movies and TV shows are Certified Fresh with a steady Tomatometer of 75% or higher after a set amount of reviews (80 for wide-release movies, 40 for limited-release movies, 20 for TV shows), including 5 reviews from Top Critics.

I will be seeing this tomorrow, as I cannot dissuade the wife from seeing what looks to be an utter disaster of a movie.  If it is terrible, I sit for 105 minutes, and have something to tease her about for the next 30 years.

How exactly does Rotten Tomatoes have anything to do with the fresh/rotten rating?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Goumindong on July 14, 2016, 03:41:10 PM
They don't. If a reviewer scores a movie >50% that is a "Fresh" rating. Plenty of certified fresh movies are middling, when a lot of reviewers moderately enjoy the movie.

Also the "trusted" almost is always lower than the "general" and "user" ratings as people who review a lot of movies tend to give lower scores in general.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Venkman on July 14, 2016, 06:34:17 PM
All big budget movies are pandering to China now.  They are major movie bucks.

I think you mean "marketing".

Of course, I also think of "China" in the plural. Place is enormous, and about as monothicycally unified as Congress. Except the latter at least speaks one language.

Back on point: any company not thinking of China is hyper local, not in any type of export business, not producing anything in SE Asia, or not publicly traded. If you use "global" more than once in any sentence a week, you're thinking about the Chinese markets (and in about half a decade: India).


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on July 14, 2016, 07:05:01 PM
I do think there are pandering gestures that a lot of studios are inserting into films, and I'm sure that with something like Ghostbusters, knowing that the peculiar obsession of current Chinese censors with forbidding ghosts, the supernatural, etc. is a major issue and in some cases might kill a script or a pitch for a particular film.

I don't think the Chinese have a problem with ghosts - that's just more bullshit made up to defend the new Ghostbusters movies and provide a weak explanation for why it's not releasing there.

China has a problem with skeletons (this is why Dota2's "Skeleton King" was turned into "Wraith King") and with things like flesh eating ghouls. But Chinese culture and film are full of supernatural things, including their versions of vampires, ghosts, etc.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on July 14, 2016, 07:53:45 PM
A couple people I know saw a screening and said that the movie really isn't that bad and somewhat enjoyed it.  These aren't SJW types either as I was expecting them to just bash the thing to death.  

edit:  These guys also don't have any real attachment to the original in the way most of you and I do.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on July 14, 2016, 08:00:23 PM
They also might be fucking clowns with bad taste. We don't know them.

Edit: Anyway, this is going to be a tough one for me. I absolutely 100% refuse to see it in theaters, but I know at some point I'm gonna have the suffer the indignity of sitting through it. It never had a chance of being good as it was an abortion and throwaway idea at conception. Blurgh.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on July 14, 2016, 08:23:55 PM
China has a problem with skeletons (this is why Dota2's "Skeleton King" was turned into "Wraith King") and with things like flesh eating ghouls. But Chinese culture and film are full of supernatural things, including their versions of vampires, ghosts, etc.

Yes, which Mao tried to wipe-out in the Cultural Revolution and break from the old ways. The laws the censors use to forbid such things are from that time frame, they're just a convenient excuse for modern regimes to keep things they don't like out.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: TheWalrus on July 15, 2016, 02:29:52 PM
Like shitty movies.  :grin:


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: HaemishM on July 15, 2016, 02:36:48 PM
My buddy at work went and saw it and said it was good. He also said that it was a lot more "serious" than the trailers made you think (as in it's not really a comedy) and that it was fun.

It's not like he changed my mind on it, since I didn't give a fuck about it when it was announced and haven't seen or heard anything that makes me give more of a fuck about it now.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Paelos on July 15, 2016, 03:02:04 PM
Yeah we needed a more serious version of Ghostbusters.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Velorath on July 15, 2016, 05:31:38 PM
My buddy at work went and saw it and said it was good. He also said that it was a lot more "serious" than the trailers made you think (as in it's not really a comedy) and that it was fun.

It's not like he changed my mind on it, since I didn't give a fuck about it when it was announced and haven't seen or heard anything that makes me give more of a fuck about it now.

Your friend is crazy. There's a "joke" every few seconds. It only not really a comedy because most of the jokes don't land.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Venkman on July 15, 2016, 05:40:54 PM
I dodged a bullet. Wife bought tickets for the whole fam, but my youngest didn't express extreme interest. So I "offered" two tickets to the neighbors kids so I can "stay home" with the youngest.

Which really just means ice cream and a much better time.

She'll come back with a full report and I trust her to say it straight.

I probably will see it at some point as a free inflight movie, if it's not an abject horror like Battlefield Earth I'd rather sleep through.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: MisterNoisy on July 15, 2016, 05:56:56 PM
One of the perks of working for a cable company is that I get to watch these trainwrecks (eventually) without having to support this shit financially.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Selby on July 15, 2016, 07:17:41 PM
The wifey REALLY wants to see this movie.  I'm not looking forward to it because of the reviews I've read that aren't obviously pro or anti, they say it's got some funny parts and 2 characters that are entertaining, while the rest of the characters are either caricatures or wooden and unfunny, combined with a plot and villain that aren't particularly enticing.  Mostly it will come down to how well the jokes resonate with the viewer as most of them don't seem to really hit the mark and very few genuine laughs - because comedy can really be subjective.  Overall it's not a trainwreck, but it isn't particularly great either.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ginaz on July 17, 2016, 01:47:45 PM
I read somewhere that female reviewers are rating this much higher than their male counterparts.  Don't know if thats true or not but its possible since men and women often find different things entertaining.  If that's the case, then thats ok because we can't have every movie be sci fi or full of superheros that cater to men.  I just wish that women would be given something original to do, like a Thelma and Louise, instead of rehashing something that was already done well by men.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on July 17, 2016, 02:19:54 PM
It's not a bad movie.  It's not a good movie.  You can just about map everything from the original to this reboot.  Plot, characters, beats of the movies, it's just about all an updated version of the original.

I feel I could say a whole lost more, but: Effort.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on July 17, 2016, 02:54:52 PM
It was pretty damn mediocre. So much so I fell asleep twice during the movie.

The only audience-wide laugh I caught was when Helmsworth was first introduced. There were titters here and there throughout but that was the only thing that seemed to have caught everyone's sense of funny at any time.

If I'm going to be snarky about it, I'd say "This is exactly the movie you'd expect from someone who puts the hate comments from their YouTube trailer into the movie as lines and scenes." That sort of one-dimensional petty gesture is how the movie approached everything from its humor to its characters. Nothing had depth.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on July 17, 2016, 02:57:29 PM
One thing that left me nonplussed was the fight scene.  It was literally right out of a video game.  Boss mob summons waves of mobs for team to fight.  Team fights them with tools that are now apparently weapons that can disable or destroy ghosts.  Final move is to take down boss mob.

Uh.  Okay.  I guess.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on July 17, 2016, 03:04:28 PM
Yeah, I was expecting that from a video review last Sunday so I just eye-rolled past it. It wasn't as bad as the reviewer said, because the proton packs were clearly still just lassoing ghosts. It was the new weapons introduced in a 3-5 min scene that were killing. I assume some line about their potency vs. the packs was cut from the final film.

However, the video-game boss-mob setup to it you're dead on about. Stilts ghost was doing hand gestures for wave summoning straight out of a few games.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on July 17, 2016, 03:08:23 PM
I thought a few were being taken out by the proton packs, but I could be wrong about that.  Especially when engineer pulls out the dual weapons (and licks one) then goes to town using what looks like the proton pack beams to take down ghost wave #4 or whatever.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sky on July 17, 2016, 03:21:06 PM
Fiancee dragged me to this, glad she did. It was an enjoyable summer movie. Effects were pretty damned good in 3d.

Y'all need to lighten up and enjoy things.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Threash on July 17, 2016, 03:43:20 PM
Watched this over the weekend, pretty decent.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Ginaz on July 17, 2016, 05:53:49 PM
I saw this today (for free) and it's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be.  It had it's moments but it wasn't particularly good, either.  Just kind of meh.  They did manage to have every male character be incredibly stupid and/or horrible. :oh_i_see:  Feminism!!!  Another completely unnecessary remake. 


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Abagadro on July 19, 2016, 02:29:57 AM
RLM take:

Congratulations Internet, you wasted your time. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEKreyTkvA)

Stay for the Larry Storch clip.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: lamaros on July 19, 2016, 05:49:22 AM
Life is too short for that shit, especially when they start out praising JJ Abrams. 44 min? Yeah-nah.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: shiznitz on July 19, 2016, 12:12:43 PM
It was pretty damn mediocre. So much so I fell asleep twice during the movie.


"damn mediocre" and "fell asleep twice" do not match when it comes to movies. Entertainment that put you to sleep failed.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Merusk on July 19, 2016, 01:44:44 PM
I watch between one and three movies a weekend. Mediocre ones put me to sleep now. I'm almost to the point of walking out when that bored but the wife is still entertained.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Khaldun on July 19, 2016, 03:38:21 PM
I can't say that I want to rush to the theater, but some folks I trust said they at least enjoyed it. Including one big skeptic.

I think we also forget how profoundly uneven and at times sub-mediocre the first movie was. If it premiered today, I'm not sure we'd all be rapturous about it. Without Murray it would have been genuinely bad--the only other people who really hit their marks are Rick Moranis and Ramis. Ackroyd is a straight man for the most part, Hudson has one or two modestly funny bits, Weaver is kind of fun but not extraordinary. Atherton's playing of an asshole sets up one great line.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Malakili on July 19, 2016, 04:14:04 PM
Bill Murray is pretty much the entire movie. I actually just ran across this on cable the other day and rewatched it and I actually liked it even more than I remembered. I have a feeling a lot of this boils down to how much you like that kind of understated dry sarcastic comedy. I'm not a big fan of comedies to begin with, which might be part of the problem here.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Samwise on July 19, 2016, 04:17:43 PM
The original Ghostbusters holds up really well.  There are some movies I loved during my childhood that I see as an adult and cringe, and there are some that I see as an adult and appreciate more.  Ghostbusters is one of the latter.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Surlyboi on July 19, 2016, 08:23:47 PM
Bill Murray is pretty much the entire movie. I actually just ran across this on cable the other day and rewatched it and I actually liked it even more than I remembered. I have a feeling a lot of this boils down to how much you like that kind of understated dry sarcastic comedy. I'm not a big fan of comedies to begin with, which might be part of the problem here.

Bill Murray was pretty much every movie that era.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Soulflame on July 19, 2016, 08:49:13 PM
Can you even imagine Groundhog Day with someone other than Murray in it.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Evildrider on July 19, 2016, 09:24:00 PM
Can you even imagine Groundhog Day with someone other than Murray in it.

John Belushi?


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: schild on July 20, 2016, 02:13:25 AM
Can you even imagine Groundhog Day with someone other than Murray in it.
John Belushi?
This seems terrible to me.

Bill Murray is pretty much the entire movie. I actually just ran across this on cable the other day and rewatched it and I actually liked it even more than I remembered. I have a feeling a lot of this boils down to how much you like that kind of understated dry sarcastic comedy. I'm not a big fan of comedies to begin with, which might be part of the problem here.

Bill Murray was pretty much every movie that era.

But I'd like to propose that John Candy played all the roles that Murray couldn't have. Characters like Uncle Buck or Del (Planes, Trains & Automobiles) would've been crap with Bill Murray. Well, maybe not crap but radically different at the very least.

I'm pretty sure Eddie Murphy was the only black guy in Hollywood in the 80s. I haven't done the math but I don't want to see Bill Murray as Axel Foley.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Sir T on July 20, 2016, 03:23:08 AM
Oh Bill Cosby was also in Hollywood in the 80s. Every movie he made was a total Flop, but he was there.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Margalis on July 20, 2016, 05:50:11 AM
Quote
I think we also forget how profoundly uneven and at times sub-mediocre the first movie was. If it premiered today, I'm not sure we'd all be rapturous about it. Without Murray it would have been genuinely bad--the only other people who really hit their marks are Rick Moranis and Ramis.

This is an insane opinion!

On the subject of a "more serious" Ghostbusters, the original is obviously a comedy but it doesn't have a lot of slapstick or random non-contextual jokes. Feig's sensibility is a lot more like Rodney Dangerfield's - a bunch of barely-related jokes. (That's not a diss, I love ole Rodney) The Red Letter Media thing touched on this a lot, though I think movie reviewers tend to vastly overestimate the amount of improv that happens in comedies.

Another important thing about the original is that it's shot like a "real" movie. For example when Weaver looks in her fridge and sees the weird dimension and the dog creature, that could easily be from a horror movie. It's not shot like a modern comedy, or like many contemporary comedies. That was a very conscious choice. Ghostbusters also uses a pretty classic film grading curve, whereas the new one, and newer comedies in general, go for a less classic film look. (By that I mean, they do not try to look like they are shot on film) Instead they tend to be more digitally graded and saturated, with popped colors and such.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zs3Xri5FnGw/hqdefault.jpg)

I think when a lot of people say that the new one is less serious and more cartoony that is a large part of what they are getting at. The first one is shot like a "real" movie that happens to be a comedy, whereas the new one is shot like a comedy or a kid's movie. (Or a Star Wars prequel)


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: eldaec on August 08, 2016, 03:42:22 AM
Fundamental problem is that 80s adventure comedies are no longer a genre people other than Disney are confident enough to make. Ever since Something About Mary, suits seem to think that anything comic has to go full Adam Sandler. Only the funnier MCU films and Pirates of the Carribean 1 spring to mind as a decent attempt at it post 2000.

The visual difference is a great example that carries right through the script. Never once does it let a joke go unexplained, or does it choose something deadpan over a pie in the face.

Can you even imagine Groundhog Day with someone other than Murray in it.

I saw the musical at the weekend and it turns out groundhog day is just fine without Murray.

Andy Karl was great.

I'm fairly sure it was better overall than the film.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: calapine on August 12, 2017, 10:09:58 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/7ZTR5Yq.gif)




Mr. Plinkett's Ghostbusters (2016) Review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHUV8QLpEAc)


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Abagadro on August 12, 2017, 01:13:17 PM
"Stop Talking!" is a pretty good encapsulation of the problems.


Title: Re: Ghostbusters reboot.
Post by: Samwise on August 12, 2017, 06:58:04 PM
Stop trying to sell me convection ovens.

I have too many convection ovens! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_2VASaMB2w)