Ivan Reitman Out as 'Ghostbusters' Reboot Director (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ghostbusters-reboot-ivan-reitman-as-689490)
Sony is planning an early 2015 production start for the film.
Third Installment Of 'Ghostbusters' A Go For Early 2015; (http://www.deadline.com/2014/03/ghostbusters-movie-going-forward-without-ivan-reitman-sony/)
Death Of Pal Harold Ramis Prompts Ivan Reitman To Turn Over Directing Reins
I'm just hoping this is the start of this project truly unraveling.
While I like Venkman, I think that he is not entirely necessary for the Ghostbusters. But Egon and Ray are the whole reason the Ghostbusting technology exists at all. Without Egon, it really just feels wrong. At this point it feels like a slap in the face to Harold Ramis to continue with a sequel and not just a complete reboot. And I don't really want to see a reboot either.
Just wait 5 or 10 years and do a straight reboot. Preferably with a different storyline so as to bring something new to the table.
It's like clockwork. An influential figure to the original dies, and suddenly traction happens on the reboot. Just like when the Get Smart movie actually started happening after Don Adams died. Whenever this happens, the cynical side of me wonders if the studio's thinking "Ooh, strike while the revered-memory iron is hot," and the REALLY cynical side of me wonders if the studio's thinking "Thank God, we don't have to worry about appeasing that old guy anymore."
I'm sure they're still going with the Extreme GB-esque "next generation" plotline, so Ray and possibly Winston would probably make the token appearance training the new recruits.
As much as I don't want a Ramis-less Ghostbusters to happen...a friend of mine suggested Chris Pratt could play one of the new, younger Ghostbusters...and I kind of DO want to see THAT happen. I'M SO CONFLICTED.
That's my big conflict too. I don't want to see Ghostbusters without Ramis or Reitman, but I absolutely need more Ghostbusters. There's sooo much potential still there.
It is telling that in the animated world, when they moved on with a new set of Ghostbusters, Egon was the mentor character. I'm not sure how they can have a handoff story without him.
...on the other hand, something like THIS (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=116264) could get me excited again.
Quote from: doggans on March 20, 2014, 07:49:05 AM
...on the other hand, something like THIS (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=116264) could get me excited again.
Crap, now I'm conflicted again. I can't think of a better recent example of "better than it had any right to be" movie than The LEGO Movie.
Making a fun film out of meatballs? No problem.
A cheesy 80s TV series? Game on.
Legos? Awesome challenge accepted.
With that resume, making a sequel to one of the most beloved comedies ever which nobody wanted to begin with seems like a breeze.
And as someone who was dreading this thing, getting those guys aboard would change my mind completely. Because they've shown an ability to get the right people (Rogan? Pratt? Hill? McBride? Glover? Robinson? Wiig? Poehler?) and be respectful with everything else so that it doesn't feel like a lousy cash grab. I'd actually want to see how they handle Egon's passing, for example. (Because you know that they just won't write the character out and ignore him.)
The people on my FB feed who were hating the project are like doggans here, going from 'ugh, awful' to '<your favorite expletive>, now I'm interested'.
If Lord/Miller sign on, then I'd be gulp excited.
Quote from: KidFlash on March 20, 2014, 10:05:16 AM
And as someone who was dreading this thing, getting those guys aboard would change my mind completely. Because they've shown an ability to get the right people (Rogan? Pratt? Hill? McBride? Glover? Robinson? Wiig? Poehler?)
I dont want any of those names to have anything to do with Ghostbusters.
Quote from: Sideswipe on March 20, 2014, 05:31:37 PM
Quote from: KidFlash on March 20, 2014, 10:05:16 AM
And as someone who was dreading this thing, getting those guys aboard would change my mind completely. Because they've shown an ability to get the right people (Rogan? Pratt? Hill? McBride? Glover? Robinson? Wiig? Poehler?)
I dont want any of those names to have anything to do with Ghostbusters.
If you don't want Chris Pratt to be a Ghostbuster, you are history's greatest monster.
Frankly, Lord/Miller have earned my trust as a filmgoer. Remember the days when everyone thought Channing Tatum was a useless pretty boy? Pretty sure 21 Jump Street was the first step in rehabbing that part of his public image (I think). So whomever they ask is okay by me - Seth Rogen has given interviews where he bagged on the idea of a third film. I suspect if L/M are involved, he would probably sing a different tune.
So consider this cautious and fragile optimism, dependent on whether they actually sign on and are announced as directors.
Appropriately enough, Ramis' role as Rogen's dad in Knocked Up was meant to symbolize a sort of passing of the torch from one scripted-enhanced-by-improv-cinematic-comedy generation to the next.
I don't know if Rogen's the BEST choice for a Ghostbuster, but I could easily see him playing one quite well, especially under Lord and Miller's direction.
Well, at the very least if this is a third movie and not a reboot, they would just be a Ghostbusters franchise and the world is already established. If it was a reboot we'd have to see them set everything up.
But what's cool about Ghostbusters is a reboot wouldn't have to tell the same story at all. There wouldn't have to be a library ghost or a Slimer, or even a Gozer. The possibilities for a team of quirky individuals getting together to start a ghost extermination service are endless.
Might be both sequel and reboot, to be honest. We'll see.
When Jason Reitman held a read-through (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/12/11/seth-rogen-jack-black-rainn-wilson-ghostbusters-reitman/) of the original Ghostbusters script in 2012, his cast was:
Seth Rogen - Venkman
Jack Black - Stantz
Rainn Wilson - Spengler
Phil LaMarr - Zeddemore
Reitman even added 30 extra lines for Rogen, as it turns out most of Murray's dialogue was ad-libbed (shocking, huh?).
I was talking to a friend about the probability of another movie post-Ramis, and the idea of a Rogen/Black/Wilson GB really appealed to him ('I'd preorder tickets').
I agree that Rogen may not be the right guy, but I trust Lord/Miller to find him/her. Anyone else directing the project, that trust goes out the window and I'm all right waiting to see GB3 at the dollar theatre.
Yay Lord and Miller!
...and, apparently Lord and Miller said no. There goes my renewed interest.
Quote from: doggans on April 07, 2014, 02:42:12 PM
...and, apparently Lord and Miller said no. There goes my renewed interest.
Is there any information on why? Did they just not like the script?
http://collider.com/phil-lord-chris-miller-turn-down-ghostbusters-3/
Here's the story. Sounds like they wanted to keep their options open, per The Wrap's tweet. The story mentions they did the same thing with The Lego Movie at first, so maybe the door's not completely shut. With 22 Jump Street being a likely hit this summer, they could probably name their next project after that.
Without them, my interest in GB3 goes from 'intrigued' to 'dollar theatre out of pure nostalgia'.
At This point they should just forget it. Just take the audio from the Video Game and make an Animated Ghostbuster 3.
The five-year-old in me wants to see this happen so badly, but the stars themselves seem aligned against it.
I'd rather not see a movie come to pass at all, than see J.J. Abrams jump on board and warp it into a sleek-and-soulless reboot.
Quote from: Ben on April 13, 2014, 08:14:52 AM
The five-year-old in me wants to see this happen so badly, but the stars themselves seem aligned against it.
...or are dead.
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on April 14, 2014, 09:50:02 AM
Quote from: Ben on April 13, 2014, 08:14:52 AM
The five-year-old in me wants to see this happen so badly, but the stars themselves seem aligned against it.
...or are dead.
I was referring to the celestial stars, not actors. Besides...that kind of "joke" isn't all that funny.
Try blonde jokes, they are always funny.
This girl, she was so blonde, she died.
I think the show must go on, and Harold Ramis would probably want them to do it; who would want their legacy to crash & burn?
But I want the original characters to have more than cameos or token apperances.
They said Venkman was going to be a ghost at one point for GB3. Now with a rewrite, CGI, and a sound alike Egon could materialize, just like they did with Brando & Olivier.
I think it would be fitting.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/ghostbusters/30776/ruben-fleischer-linked-with-directing-ghostbusters-3 (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/ghostbusters/30776/ruben-fleischer-linked-with-directing-ghostbusters-3)
After Zombieland? Okay!
After Gangster Squad? Ummmmm....
Looks like we may be finally getting Ghostbusters II on Blu-Ray!
http://www.ghostbustersmania.net/2014/05/01/gb1-and-gb2-blu-ray-ultimate-hero-pack/ (ftp://www.ghostbustersmania.net/2014/05/01/gb1-and-gb2-blu-ray-ultimate-hero-pack/)
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/76601/feast-your-eyes-major-ghostbusters-3-info#axzz34o2gyUyB
The latest bit of non-news on this project. What struck me odd was, isn't Oscar the baby of Dana and that orchestra guy, not Venkman?
I do like the idea of Rick Moranis playing a prison hardened (or at least trying to be prison hardened) version of Tully. And does that mean he is now open to coming back for this if it happens?
I don't see Winston as the CEO. That's definitely Venkman. I thik Winston would be the one training various new Ghostbuster franchises. ALthough maybe if Bill Murrey doesn't want to come back then Venkman could have been the CEO and Winston takes it over because he feels he has to and doesn't really like it.
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 16, 2014, 06:53:15 AM
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/76601/feast-your-eyes-major-ghostbusters-3-info#axzz34o2gyUyB
The latest bit of non-news on this project. What struck me odd was, isn't Oscar the baby of Dana and that orchestra guy, not Venkman?
There was, I think, some question of that. Either Dana left right after she became pregnant with Peter and ran off with the orchestra guy, or it was the orchestra guy from right after she left. In either case the "I should have been your father" line from Venkman is pretty loaded, and even if he's not the birth father, Oscar probably knows him as "Dad" now.
Quote from: RoninFox on June 16, 2014, 07:03:06 AM
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 16, 2014, 06:53:15 AM
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/76601/feast-your-eyes-major-ghostbusters-3-info#axzz34o2gyUyB
The latest bit of non-news on this project. What struck me odd was, isn't Oscar the baby of Dana and that orchestra guy, not Venkman?
There was, I think, some question of that. Either Dana left right after she became pregnant with Peter and ran off with the orchestra guy, or it was the orchestra guy from right after she left. In either case the "I should have been your father" line from Venkman is pretty loaded, and even if he's not the birth father, Oscar probably knows him as "Dad" now.
I just have difficulty beleiving that they would be so casual about it in that scene if Venkman had been the father.
Also, if they have Oscar grown up, they should cast him with somebody that looks as close to Wilhelm von Homburg as possible.
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 16, 2014, 07:07:25 AM
Quote from: RoninFox on June 16, 2014, 07:03:06 AM
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 16, 2014, 06:53:15 AM
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/76601/feast-your-eyes-major-ghostbusters-3-info#axzz34o2gyUyB
The latest bit of non-news on this project. What struck me odd was, isn't Oscar the baby of Dana and that orchestra guy, not Venkman?
There was, I think, some question of that. Either Dana left right after she became pregnant with Peter and ran off with the orchestra guy, or it was the orchestra guy from right after she left. In either case the "I should have been your father" line from Venkman is pretty loaded, and even if he's not the birth father, Oscar probably knows him as "Dad" now.
I just have difficulty beleiving that they would be so casual about it in that scene if Venkman had been the father.
Perhaps so, but it would explain why Dana wouldn't even want Peter to be involved in the investigation more so than if they just had a normal breakup.
Quote from: RoninFox on June 16, 2014, 07:31:33 AM
Perhaps so, but it would explain why Dana wouldn't even want Peter to be involved in the investigation more so than if they just had a normal breakup.
I took that to be that she knew if he was involved with the investigation he would be on her like a cheap suit the whole time. Which he was.
Dana's relationship after she left Peter is very ambiguous, theres nothing really in the movie to suggest who she ended up with. If they had intended Peter to be Oscar's father I think they would have settled that by the end of the movie.
Quote from: Peter VenkmanWell, he's ugly. I mean, he's not Elephant Man ugly, but he's not attractive. Was his father ugly?
I'm pretty sure that implies an unknown parentage.
THR:
'Ghostbusters 3' Targets Paul Feig as Director (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ghostbusters-3-targets-paul-feig-723028)
UPDATED: Sources say the film will be a reboot focusing on female Ghostbusters.
Quote from: Henry88 on August 02, 2014, 05:49:24 PM
THR:
'Ghostbusters 3' Targets Paul Feig as Director (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ghostbusters-3-targets-paul-feig-723028)
UPDATED: Sources say the film will be a reboot focusing on female Ghostbusters.
What? I'm not apposed to female Ghostbusters, although making them ALL female seems like just changing it up just to change it up. It reminds me of the Final Sacrifice end credits bit with Mike as the movie executive. "Rowsdower, a big hairy girl!"
I think the Extreme Ghostbusters (can you tell it was a 90s show?) handled a female Ghostbuster okay.
I think it would just make more sense to do a completely different all female franchise. The franchise was so deeply tied with the performers that whatever cast they bring in (almost certainly Melissa McCarthy, due to her awesomeness) that if only the traps remain the same, it seems like it would be better to take the premise of a ragtag group of ghost chasers and use it as a jumping on point for something very different.
I still say do my idea from the 80s LoC. Make Guillermo Del Toro's At The Mountains of Madness, and then have Ghostbusters be a really dark fucked up sequel when the creatures from the Antarctic reach New York.
Well it's not like they're literally giving us a 1 to 1 female replacement, with Egonita, Ramona, Peterita, and Winstonia... Are they? They wouldn't do that, right?
As long as we're continuing to speculate about a movie that we know deep down will still be in development hell for years...
With the great Paul Feig involved, that almost guarantees Melissa McCarthy a spot. I would love if it also meant roles for Linda Cardellini and Busy Phillips, but he hasn't worked with them quite so much since Freaks and Geeks.
On the other hand, he hadn't worked with Joel, Trace, and Josh since Freaks and Geeks either before he brought them in to do the commentary for The Heat, so who knows?
Quote from: doggans on August 03, 2014, 09:28:56 AM
On the other hand, he hadn't worked with Joel, Trace, and Josh since Freaks and Geeks either before he brought them in to do the commentary for The Heat, so who knows?
I pleas GOD have him cast Trace as one of the tech support guys!
This is the first bit of news that makes GB3 sound like it could potentially be good in the history of the idea of GB3.
http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-3-woman-writer/ (http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-3-woman-writer/)
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 04:54:52 PM
http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-3-woman-writer/ (http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-3-woman-writer/)
I find this more of a positive thing than the female cast itself. More good female writers is sorely lacking in Hollywood.
That being said,
Twilight was written by a woman, primary female character, and the first movie was directed by a woman, and it's script was written by a woman. So it's not exactly a guarantee of quality.
Quote from: Darth Geek on October 08, 2014, 05:19:02 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 04:54:52 PM
http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-3-woman-writer/ (http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-3-woman-writer/)
I find this more of a positive thing than the female cast itself. More good female writers is sorely lacking in Hollywood.
That being said, Twilight was written by a woman, primary female character, and the first movie was directed by a woman, and it's script was written by a woman. So it's not exactly a guarantee of quality.
No, of course not, but for every Twilight example, you could name a hundred movies written by, directed by, starring dudes that stink too!
I would love to see GH3 begin at the Vatican with priests attempting an exorcism on somebody and the Ghostbusters pop in when their efforts fail and kill the ghosts. Bill Murray would say something along the lines of "Are you gonna ask me if I'm God? because based on our performance, I'm gonna say YES."
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 05:24:44 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on October 08, 2014, 05:19:02 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 04:54:52 PM
http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-3-woman-writer/ (http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-3-woman-writer/)
I find this more of a positive thing than the female cast itself. More good female writers is sorely lacking in Hollywood.
That being said, Twilight was written by a woman, primary female character, and the first movie was directed by a woman, and it's script was written by a woman. So it's not exactly a guarantee of quality.
No, of course not, but for every Twilight example, you could name a hundred movies written by, directed by, starring dudes that stink too!
Oh, absolutely. I'm just saying it's not any guarantee.
In my opinion, so many female characters in movies suck because they are most often written by male writers who don't know how to write them well. But executives insist they put women in, usually as shoehorned in and unnecessary love story subplots. I often hear women complaining about the quality of female characters in movies, but then clamoring for more of them. As if it's some sort of quota system. Or some idea that the percentage of good to bad characters will stay the same, so increase the whole. Frankly, I'd rather see fewer female characters IF that meant the ones we get are better. If a writer doesn't know how to write women well DON'T MAKE THEM DO IT. Get more writers (male or female) who can.
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 05:39:12 PM
I would love to see GH3 begin at the Vatican with priests attempting an exorcism on somebody and the Ghostbusters pop in when their efforts fail and kill the ghosts. Bill Murray would say something along the lines of "Are you gonna ask me if I'm God? because based on our performance, I'm gonna say YES."
"Are you God?"
Nope! But I killed one."
Part of me is scared to see a Ghostbusters movie without Ramis and Reitman. Most of me is more scared to never see anymore Ghostbusters. Bring on the She-Ghostbusters! Let's see how this goes!
If the last Kate Dippold/Paul Feig collaboration is any indication...if nothing else, I look forward to the commentary from Joel, Trace, and Josh!
(And speaking of bringing back Freaks and Geeks actors...come on, Feig. Linda and Busy as busters. Make it happen.)
Just keep Aykroyd away from the writer's chair.
Quote from: doggans on October 08, 2014, 07:29:39 PM
(And speaking of bringing back Freaks and Geeks actors...come on, Feig. Linda and Busy as busters. Make it happen.)
YESSSSS. YES. YES. YES. YESSSSSS.
Quote from: doggans on October 08, 2014, 07:29:39 PM
If the last Kate Dippold/Paul Feig collaboration is any indication...if nothing else, I look forward to the commentary from Joel, Trace, and Josh!
I'd love to have him cast Trace in a cameo as an R&D guy or something.
Quote from: Pak-Man on October 08, 2014, 06:46:52 PM
Part of me is scared to see a Ghostbusters movie without Ramis and Reitman. Most of me is more scared to never see anymore Ghostbusters. Bring on the She-Ghostbusters! Let's see how this goes!
I doubt you'll "never see another Ghostbusters" if this doesn't happen. They'll reboot it eventually. It's too big of a franchise name for the studio not to.
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Just keep Aykroyd away from the writer's chair.
If I had a shitton of money, I'd hire Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright to make it.
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Just keep Aykroyd away from the writer's chair.
If I had a shitton of money, I'd hire Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright to make it.
If I had a shitload of money, I'd pay them to stay away from it.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:06:24 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Just keep Aykroyd away from the writer's chair.
If I had a shitton of money, I'd hire Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright to make it.
If I had a shitload of money, I'd pay them to stay away from it.
Your logic escapes me.
I must be the only one who doesnt see a point to making another Ghostbusters movie. Aside from money of course.
Quote from: Sideswipe on October 08, 2014, 08:11:25 PM
I must be the only one who doesnt see a point to making another Ghostbusters movie. Aside from money of course.
I hope the point is to make a great comedy that continues the story. Monetary concerns ought to be a distant second or third on the priority list.
Harold Ramis is dead and Bill Murray has no interest in another movie. Continuing the story is pointless.
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:08:55 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:06:24 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Just keep Aykroyd away from the writer's chair.
If I had a shitton of money, I'd hire Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright to make it.
If I had a shitload of money, I'd pay them to stay away from it.
Your logic escapes me.
Christopher Nolan is tonaly all wrong.
Edgar Wright has only made one great movie.
Quote from: Sideswipe on October 08, 2014, 08:14:17 PM
Harold Ramis is dead and Bill Murray has no interest in another movie. Continuing the story is pointless.
Nonsense.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:14:50 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:08:55 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:06:24 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Just keep Aykroyd away from the writer's chair.
If I had a shitton of money, I'd hire Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright to make it.
If I had a shitload of money, I'd pay them to stay away from it.
Your logic escapes me.
Christopher Nolan is tonaly all wrong.
Edgar Wright has only made one great movie.
Nonsense. The latter part. The first thing is right. Also, it goes beyond just tone, Chistopher Nolan is the last guy I would go for a comedy.
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on October 08, 2014, 08:17:59 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:14:50 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:08:55 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:06:24 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Just keep Aykroyd away from the writer's chair.
If I had a shitton of money, I'd hire Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright to make it.
If I had a shitload of money, I'd pay them to stay away from it.
Your logic escapes me.
Christopher Nolan is tonaly all wrong.
Edgar Wright has only made one great movie.
Nonsense. The latter part. The first thing is right. Also, it goes beyond just tone, Chistopher Nolan is the last guy I would go for a comedy.
It's my shitload of money and I'll spend it however I like.
Quote from: doggans on October 08, 2014, 07:29:39 PM
If the last Kate Dippold/Paul Feig collaboration is any indication...if nothing else, I look forward to the commentary from Joel, Trace, and Josh!
(And speaking of bringing back Freaks and Geeks actors...come on, Feig. Linda and Busy as busters. Make it happen.)
Apropos of nothing, but this made me think: Wouldn't Joel make a kickin' Ghostbuster? I doubt he'd ever do it, but he'd be awesome.
Quote from: Darth Geek on October 08, 2014, 07:52:14 PM
Quote from: Pak-Man on October 08, 2014, 06:46:52 PM
Part of me is scared to see a Ghostbusters movie without Ramis and Reitman. Most of me is more scared to never see anymore Ghostbusters. Bring on the She-Ghostbusters! Let's see how this goes!
I doubt you'll "never see another Ghostbusters" if this doesn't happen. They'll reboot it eventually. It's too big of a franchise name for the studio not to.
30 years, including 20 years in development hell, say otherwise...
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:14:50 PM
Edgar Wright has only made one great movie.
Oh my God... you're right! Let's see.. Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz... End of the World... Wait a minute... okay what genius in the Webster's dictionary writing committee changed the definition of three so that it now means one?!
Quote from: Soguru on October 09, 2014, 02:14:54 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:14:50 PM
Edgar Wright has only made one great movie.
Oh my God... you're right! Let's see.. Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz... End of the World... Wait a minute... okay what genius in the Webster's dictionary writing committee changed the definition of three so that it now means one?!
I am aware of his work.
All Female Ghostbusters is a go (for now)
http://www.vulture.com/2014/10/paul-feig-is-making-that-all-female-ghostbusters.html?mid=imdb
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:25:24 PM
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on October 08, 2014, 08:17:59 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:14:50 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:08:55 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:06:24 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Just keep Aykroyd away from the writer's chair.
If I had a shitton of money, I'd hire Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright to make it.
If I had a shitload of money, I'd pay them to stay away from it.
Your logic escapes me.
Christopher Nolan is tonaly all wrong.
Edgar Wright has only made one great movie.
Nonsense. The latter part. The first thing is right. Also, it goes beyond just tone, Chistopher Nolan is the last guy I would go for a comedy.
It's my shitload of money and I'll spend it however I like.
Just remember it'll be more like a crapload and a half after all the imaginary taxes.
Then after paying Nolan you have maybe a poopoo-ounce to spend on special effects and actors.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 09, 2014, 02:32:39 AM
Quote from: Soguru on October 09, 2014, 02:14:54 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:14:50 PM
Edgar Wright has only made one great movie.
Oh my God... you're right! Let's see.. Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz... End of the World... Wait a minute... okay what genius in the Webster's dictionary writing committee changed the definition of three so that it now means one?!
I am aware of his work.
What about Ray Bradbury?
Interview with Paul Feig about the movie.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/10/08/paul-feig-ghostbusters-female/?hootPostID=1b48261a6b2a0769ba3baabd3e53861d (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/10/08/paul-feig-ghostbusters-female/?hootPostID=1b48261a6b2a0769ba3baabd3e53861d)
If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, a couple of the big points are:
It's gonna be a reboot, not building on the universe of the existing movies. Paul didn't want to mess with the legacy, and says he loves telling origin stories.
He's open to original cast members making cameos, but there are no deals in place and if they do show up they won't be playing the same characters.
Yep, just another shitty reboot.
Quote from: RoninFox on October 09, 2014, 09:03:05 AM
Interview with Paul Feig about the movie.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/10/08/paul-feig-ghostbusters-female/?hootPostID=1b48261a6b2a0769ba3baabd3e53861d (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/10/08/paul-feig-ghostbusters-female/?hootPostID=1b48261a6b2a0769ba3baabd3e53861d)
If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, a couple of the big points are:
It's gonna be a reboot, not building on the universe of the existing movies. Paul didn't want to mess with the legacy, and says he loves telling origin stories.
He's open to original cast members making cameos, but there are no deals in place and if they do show up they won't be playing the same characters.
Well...shit. Very dissapointed it's going to be an origin story. You know, even the first Ghostbusters wasn't originally going to be an origin story. It was supposed to start up with them already established.
Still reserving judgment, I know that's not the internet way. I should instantly declare it a hate-crime until it comes out, then if I actually like it mention in passing once that it wasn't as bad as I thought, then when some blog mentions it made $45 less than the studio predicted I should start yelling "See, I told you it was a shit idea!"
I was hoping they'd at least take the Extreme Ghostbusters route.
Quote from: RoninFox on October 09, 2014, 09:38:18 AM
Still reserving judgment, I know that's not the internet way. I should instantly declare it a hate-crime until it comes out, then if I actually like it mention in passing once that it wasn't as bad as I thought, then when some blog mentions it made $45 less than the studio predicted I should start yelling "See, I told you it was a shit idea!"
Yeah, I'm trying to bite my tongue until I actually see the thing. Still, I'd be lying if I was very optimistic, especially after the mediocre outing that was The Heat.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:14:50 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:08:55 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 08, 2014, 08:06:24 PM
Quote from: Soguru on October 08, 2014, 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on October 08, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Just keep Aykroyd away from the writer's chair.
If I had a shitton of money, I'd hire Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright to make it.
If I had a shitload of money, I'd pay them to stay away from it.
Your logic escapes me.
Christopher Nolan is tonaly all wrong.
Edgar Wright has only made one great movie.
Dislike.
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on October 08, 2014, 08:17:59 PM
Chistopher Nolan is the last guy I would go for a comedy.
Really? So you'd hire the Zuckers, the Wayans, the idiots who made the Epic movie/Scary movie/Haunted house movies over Christopher Nolan? You know, Christopher Nolan has actually written a few funny jokes in TDK trilogy...
Actually, now that I think about it, GOTG writers James Gunn, Chris Mccoy and Nicole Perlman would be great too.
On paper, giving Feig and his crew a shot is not a bad idea.
Implying like it'll be a rehash of the first film - except with The Ladies! - in that interview is a terrible idea.
I'd love to see a few talented actresses and comediennes take a swing at Ghostbusters. But the implied 'origin story' within... I'm not really interested in that. At least now, well before casting and the like. We'll see.
Amazingly, I kinda feel bad for Dan Aykroyd. To put in all that work towards a third film and to not have even a cameo as Ray? Talk about a kick to the nether regions.
Some perspective...
http://www.avclub.com/article/why-total-ghostbusters-reboot-best-possible-plan-210300
I don't know why people are tyring to find new writers and directors when they already have such a great team on the job.
I have to admit I'd prefer it not to be a reboot too, but I have a fair amount of trust for this team.
It's nice that most Facebook commenters feel the need to point out a) They're not sexist but b) women aren't funny. Also this is somehow linked to the new Thor and Falcon being Captain America again, who will stand up for white men?! WHO!?!
I still can't work out who keeps making those people see movies they don't want to see .
Quote from: ScottotD on October 09, 2014, 06:32:45 PM
I still can't work out who keeps making those people see movies they don't want to see .
the jews.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20130612181930%2Farresteddevelopment%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F5%2F52%2FBehind_the_Scenes_-_Will_Arnett_as_GOB_Bluth%2F310px-Behind_the_Scenes_-_Will_Arnett_as_GOB_Bluth.jpg&hash=8417b70c7fb5936520246c00751b02142e6bf96e)
"The juice?"
Frankly i just waiting for that All Transvestite Back to the Future movie. Also i didn't find Bridesmaids or the Heat to be all that funny. Whenever someone dose make a remake. Its almost always pals in comparison to the original. And why be original when you can make a remake with same brand name, story, characters and make tons of cash off a gullible public. Who will buy anything with a brand name. This is reason we have the Jaden Smith Karate Kid, JJ Abrams Star Trek (entertaining, but the story sucks), and Micheal Bay Transformers.
Quote from: Road_Element on October 16, 2014, 11:45:29 AM
Frankly i just waiting for that All Transvestite Back to the Future movie. Also i didn't find Bridesmaids or the Heat to be all that funny. Whenever someone dose make a remake. Its almost always pals in comparison to the original. And why be original when you can make a remake with same brand name, story, characters and make tons of cash off a gullible public. Who will buy anything with a brand name. This is reason we have the Jaden Smith Karate Kid, JJ Abrams Star Trek (entertaining, but the story sucks), and Micheal Bay Transformers.
Why has nobody ever made these points before?! :)
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superherohype.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FEW-Reunions-1337-1338.jpg&hash=b9e3abc911c96edb2d874800451175d65d65bab9)
Looks like Dan Aykroyd is in better shape. Maybe he could be in another Ghostbusters movie.
Quote from: Kete on November 05, 2014, 09:57:34 AM
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superherohype.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FEW-Reunions-1337-1338.jpg&hash=b9e3abc911c96edb2d874800451175d65d65bab9)
Looks like Dan Aykroyd is in better shape. Maybe he could be in another Ghostbusters movie.
How would being fat mean he couldn't be in it?
Quote from: ScottotD on November 05, 2014, 10:12:31 AM
Quote from: Kete on November 05, 2014, 09:57:34 AM
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superherohype.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FEW-Reunions-1337-1338.jpg&hash=b9e3abc911c96edb2d874800451175d65d65bab9)
Looks like Dan Aykroyd is in better shape. Maybe he could be in another Ghostbusters movie.
How would being fat mean he couldn't be in it?
It wasn't just that. He really looked unhealthy. Not someone that could carry a big budget movie.
Just look at this image:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREeDcMJiKrDcD6aCQtyZN_VK9XAH-nK1gFpKJOPTpi-yVkvEZGVw)
Quote from: Kete on November 05, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: ScottotD on November 05, 2014, 10:12:31 AM
Quote from: Kete on November 05, 2014, 09:57:34 AM
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superherohype.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FEW-Reunions-1337-1338.jpg&hash=b9e3abc911c96edb2d874800451175d65d65bab9)
Looks like Dan Aykroyd is in better shape. Maybe he could be in another Ghostbusters movie.
How would being fat mean he couldn't be in it?
It wasn't just that. He really looked unhealthy. Not someone that could carry a big budget movie.
Just look at this image:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREeDcMJiKrDcD6aCQtyZN_VK9XAH-nK1gFpKJOPTpi-yVkvEZGVw)
Prostheticitis is a harsh disease.
The spent all the photoshop budget on Sigourney that none was left over for Lindsay Lohan.
I mean, if that's post-photoshop......
Lindsay Lohan is just a total train wreck. Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Tina Fey is adorable.
Three things bother me about that cover:
1) Lack of Harold Ramis. He was always my favorite, and it just smacks of bad timing on the magazine's part.
2) I like Sigourney Weaver in those movies, but she was never a Ghostbuster. She shouldn't be in a uniform.
3) No Rick Moranis?
Ramis being dead means he couldn't be part of a reunion, how is that bad timing?
Moranis only really does minor publicity for his music nowdays, he probably said no.
I should have gone in Rick Moranis' place.
Quote from: Kete on November 05, 2014, 08:33:55 PM
I should have gone in Rick Moranis' place.
There is no Rick Moranis, only Kete?
Quote from: Darth Geek on November 05, 2014, 07:47:10 PM
Three things bother me about that cover:
1) Lack of Harold Ramis. He was always my favorite, and it just smacks of bad timing on the magazine's part.
Would it helped if they photoshopped him in as a ghost? Keep in mind, that is my solution to most problems in life.
Also, this is awesome:
http://vimeo.com/100250026
middle school Bill Murray girl is great (though middle school Harold Ramis does a good job as well).
I read an interview a year or two back from Moranis where he said that he never says no until everything is laid out.... and that he had been contacted by a producer associated with Aykroyd. I recall he had a similar stance as Murray's, basically "well, the script can't suck... and I thought GB2 sucked." So I think that's a public "not interested but never say never" type of thing.
EDIT:
I'm just slightly too old to have fully embraced the internet. I know pretty much everything I've ever read is out there somewhere... but I never think to look for it until after the fact. Anyways, here is the article / interview snippet I referenced above.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=37916 (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=37916)
And hey... he still got the Lewis look... he's aged rather gracefully....
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Fuploaded%2Frick-moranis-empire-exclusive.jpg&hash=d21f2265ff587ecac9677ed06141a8d9c417916e)
Yeah, he looks a LOT better than I expected.
And we have a cast!
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01/27/female-ghostbusters-cast-revealed-wiig-mccarthy-mckinnon-jones
(In early talks, at least.)
Kristen Wiig
Kate McKinnon
Leslie Jones
Melissa McCarthy
*Checks IMDB*
Haven't seen any of Wiig's live-action work (Although I actually enjoyed her performance as Lola Bunny in the understandably underrated Looney Tunes Show)
I only know Kate McKinnon from her few appearances on Venture Bros. as Dermott's mom and grandmother.
I've got nothing on Leslie Jones or Melissa McCarthy.
3 out of 4 of the actors are from Saturday Night Live, which was enough to get the original Ghostbusters off the ground.
Maybe?
Quote from: Pak-Man on January 27, 2015, 02:54:55 PM
And we have a cast!
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01/27/female-ghostbusters-cast-revealed-wiig-mccarthy-mckinnon-jones
(In early talks, at least.)
Kristen Wiig
Kate McKinnon
Leslie Jones
Melissa McCarthy
*Checks IMDB*
Haven't seen any of Wiig's live-action work (Although I actually enjoyed her performance as Lola Bunny in the understandably underrated Looney Tunes Show)
I only know Kate McKinnon from her few appearances on Venture Bros. as Dermott's mom and grandmother.
I've got nothing on Leslie Jones or Melissa McCarthy.
3 out of 4 of the actors are from Saturday Night Live, which was enough to get the original Ghostbusters off the ground.
Maybe?
I can't imagine them using Melissa McCarthy as anything but a long fat joke. She has yet to be in a comedic role that does not have her act like a cartoon character.
I really want the soundtrack to be the exact same as the original movie. Any chance that could happen?
Nah. Maybe the same tone. Hopefully less of a R&B/rap vibe than 2.
Quote from: Soguru on January 27, 2015, 04:06:26 PM
I really want the soundtrack to be the exact same as the original movie. Any chance that could happen?
Nnnnope! Hip hip remix of Who You Gonna Call! If I run out of vomit, can I borrow some of yours?
Quote from: Kete on January 27, 2015, 03:49:37 PM
I can't imagine them using Melissa McCarthy as anything but a long fat joke. She has yet to be in a comedic role that does not have her act like a cartoon character.
Yea, I gotta agree here. I think her schtick can be amusing... but so far she has basically played the same part in every movie I've seen her in... and I've probably seen them all because for whatever reason... my wife finds her hilarious. That said, I'm still more interested in seeing this then I would have been had they pulled a sixtysomething gang of Murray, Aykroyd and Hudson out of mothballs.
Quote from: Soguru on January 27, 2015, 04:06:26 PM
I really want the soundtrack to be the exact same as the original movie. Any chance that could happen?
Add Bobby Brown from 2 and I agree
Too hot to handle
Too cold to hold.
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 27, 2015, 06:07:39 PM
Quote from: Soguru on January 27, 2015, 04:06:26 PM
I really want the soundtrack to be the exact same as the original movie. Any chance that could happen?
Nnnnope! Hip hip remix of Who You Gonna Call! If I run out of vomit, can I borrow some of yours?
That's funny because I was thinking exactly of the same quote just today ;D
Would they have to pay Huey Lewis royalties to sample Who You Gonna Call I wonder.
Quote from: Kete on January 27, 2015, 03:49:37 PM
I can't imagine them using Melissa McCarthy as anything but a long fat joke. She has yet to be in a comedic role that does not have her act like a cartoon character.
That's been my biggest problem with her work too, but I've heard good things about her role in St Vincent. Anyone actually seen that one?
I'm all for the rest of the cast, but I think this movie will live or die based on the script.
http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/now-that-theyve-found-the-new-ghostbusters-what-should-audiences-expect
QuoteOne thing to keep in mind here is that they are not playing the characters from the original film. They're not meant to simply be female versions of Venkman, Spengler, Stantz, and Zeddmore. Instead, these are totally different characters in a similar type of situation. Erin Gabler and Abby Bergman are the first two leads, and as the film begins, they are former colleagues. They co-wrote a book about the paranormal together, then went in different directions. Erin works for Columbia, and she's getting close to tenure, while Abby is more involved in the pursuit of ghosts, with a new partner named Jillian. In a world where there are thirty different "Ghost Hunters" style TV shows out there, the set-up makes sense, and it sets up a tension between serious academic motives and mainstream pop parapsychology.
While yes, it's annoying we have to go through yet another origin story,I like that at least the setup is different. And the inclusion of the existance of "Ghost Hunters" type TV shows in this world definitely has some potential for humor.
They have apparently been talking with Bill Murray for a "Walter Peck type" role. Personally, if they are going to bring anybody back from the original cast, I'd like to see Moranis play that. He'd be perfect for a little weazel with an inferiority complex and too much power. And it'd give him a chance to do something against type from what he is usually cast as.
I still think the whole "It's Ghostbusters, but this time they're all female" seems rather gimmicky. But they each can be funny when given good material to work with. So as Ronin said, it's all in the script.
Quote from: RoninFox on January 28, 2015, 04:08:38 AM
Quote from: Kete on January 27, 2015, 03:49:37 PM
I can't imagine them using Melissa McCarthy as anything but a long fat joke. She has yet to be in a comedic role that does not have her act like a cartoon character.
That's been my biggest problem with her work too, but I've heard good things about her role in St Vincent. Anyone actually seen that one?
I'm all for the rest of the cast, but I think this movie will live or die based on the script.
I saw it, and yes, she is great, but she's also not doing anything funny.
Quote from: Kete on January 28, 2015, 07:20:56 AM
Quote from: RoninFox on January 28, 2015, 04:08:38 AM
Quote from: Kete on January 27, 2015, 03:49:37 PM
I can't imagine them using Melissa McCarthy as anything but a long fat joke. She has yet to be in a comedic role that does not have her act like a cartoon character.
That's been my biggest problem with her work too, but I've heard good things about her role in St Vincent. Anyone actually seen that one?
I'm all for the rest of the cast, but I think this movie will live or die based on the script.
I saw it, and yes, she is great, but she's also not doing anything funny.
Funny or not, at least it shows she has some range.
Oh, and by the way, all the complaints I see about the backlash being sexist? Yeah, I don't doubt there are some sexist guys who are complaining just because they are all women. But every complaint I've seen about McCarthy's casting ARE EXACTLY THE SAME COMPLAINTS IF KEVIN JAMES HAD BEEN CAST!
They should have cast the BK Kids Club
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m4l7f16nym1ro8ysbo1_1280.jpg&hash=39cd47d76eb1841135725b37c7e0aca362cdbc43)
Oh wait. They already did:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.crackedcdn.com%2Fphpimages%2Farticle%2F4%2F3%2F6%2F351436_v1.jpg&hash=9847accab19ef5ae2b1a2adab0f0cb8d3fe6d9f0)
Quote from: Kete on January 28, 2015, 09:09:37 AM
Oh wait. They already did:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.crackedcdn.com%2Fphpimages%2Farticle%2F4%2F3%2F6%2F351436_v1.jpg&hash=9847accab19ef5ae2b1a2adab0f0cb8d3fe6d9f0)
I find it rather amusing that their website is still up.
Quote from: Kete on January 28, 2015, 09:09:37 AM
Oh wait. They already did:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.crackedcdn.com%2Fphpimages%2Farticle%2F4%2F3%2F6%2F351436_v1.jpg&hash=9847accab19ef5ae2b1a2adab0f0cb8d3fe6d9f0)
And in that they were smart to keep Egon, BECAUSE HE'S THE BEST ONE!
The teeth gnashing in other areas of the Internet has been spectacular. We're really in for 18 months of this, aren't we?
Look, I love Ghostbusters as much as anyone, but the reaction has been utterly ridiculous.
I mean, seriously - Jezebel's post had numerous verbal handstands and everywhere else there were wails and complaints about the death of Hollywood (not here - hell, even on the Buffalo Sabres fan MB I frequent, the wailing was good and loud).
It's not exactly the way I'd have done it (ignoring the other movies doesn't sit well with me, and if they're going to go after Murray, just bring him back as Venkman to bounce off the ladies), but I'm not the guy making the movie.
https://twitter.com/ghostsplaining
That is glorious.
Bring back Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver! I mean come on, that's pretty obvious isn't it? Not just for a damn cameo either.
Quote from: Kete on January 27, 2015, 03:49:37 PMI can't imagine them using Melissa McCarthy as anything but a long fat joke. She has yet to be in a comedic role that does not have her act like a cartoon character.
Seven seasons of Gilmore Girls disagree with that assertion.
At any rate, it's more or less the cast I expected. I wouldn't exactly say I'm excited for this movie, but it has the potential to be quite fun with the right script. And even if it's not any good, it's not like it'll overshadow the original in the annals of pop culture.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on January 28, 2015, 05:38:54 PM
https://twitter.com/ghostsplaining
The funniest part is the suggestions they're not still in their childhoods.
Quote from: Imrahil on January 28, 2015, 08:42:34 PM
I showed the original on Halloween this last year, and maybe 4 kids (out of 150 boarders) showed up to watch it. The rest said "ew" or various equivalents when I said we'd be watching Ghostbusters.
It's already an "old man" film.
Maybe some kids need perspective these days. I'd show them 2 minutes of any film from the 20's and then show them Ghostbusters and then see if their tone changes.
So is there a petition for the return of Ecto-Cooler to coincide with the movie? Because that seems to be the kind of thing the internet is usually all over.
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on January 29, 2015, 04:18:13 AM
So is there a petition for the return of Ecto-Cooler to coincide with the movie? Because that seems to be the kind of thing the internet is usually all over.
That's at least one thing that'd make them (and me) happy.
Then again, I'm sure one ingredient will be in a slightly different proportion and the internet will explode in "Hi-C killed my childhood" rants.
The slimer on the box will be a woman and everyone will be convinced the flavor is ruined.
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on January 29, 2015, 04:18:13 AM
So is there a petition for the return of Ecto-Cooler to coincide with the movie? Because that seems to be the kind of thing the internet is usually all over.
Finally! A worthy internet cause!
Quote from: Soguru on January 28, 2015, 10:32:36 PM
Quote from: Imrahil on January 28, 2015, 08:42:34 PM
I showed the original on Halloween this last year, and maybe 4 kids (out of 150 boarders) showed up to watch it. The rest said "ew" or various equivalents when I said we'd be watching Ghostbusters.
It's already an "old man" film.
Maybe some kids need perspective these days. I'd show them 2 minutes of any film from the 20's and then show them Ghostbusters and then see if their tone changes.
To be fair (and to put it in a frightening perspective)...imagine it's the 80s, Ghostbusters is still in theaters, and you're a young person (kid, teenager, whatever), and your thirty-something dad/teacher/whomever puts on one of his favorite movies from his childhood...20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. I can imagine a bunch of kids frowning and acting all huffy in that situation, too, and he can't understand why.
Granted, there wasn't 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea cereal, drinks, spin-off cartoon shows (well, there may have been, but I didn't see them), and whatnot. Heck, the Ninja Turtles are from the same era and they keep attracting new fans all the time. But it is true, the 80s were a long time ago, relatively speaking.
And really, Ghostbusters 2 kind of pointed this out in the first ten minutes, and that was only five years. "We thought it was gonna be He-Man!"
Quote from: Soguru on January 28, 2015, 10:32:36 PM
Quote from: Imrahil on January 28, 2015, 08:42:34 PM
I showed the original on Halloween this last year, and maybe 4 kids (out of 150 boarders) showed up to watch it. The rest said "ew" or various equivalents when I said we'd be watching Ghostbusters.
It's already an "old man" film.
Maybe some kids need perspective these days. I'd show them 2 minutes of any film from the 20's and then show them Ghostbusters and then see if their tone changes.
LIKE
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on January 29, 2015, 04:18:13 AM
So is there a petition for the return of Ecto-Cooler to coincide with the movie? Because that seems to be the kind of thing the internet is usually all over.
LIKE
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on January 28, 2015, 05:38:54 PM
https://twitter.com/ghostsplaining
HATE!
It makes me want to rescind my earlier comments. Even though my particular complaints about Melissa McCarthy are the same as if Kevin James had been cast. But whenever I see comments from "Men's Rights Activists" it just makes me want to chop my dick off.
I know at least some of the rants are meant as parody, but I can't always tell the difference, and I'm afraid to find out how lopsided the ratio is.
Quote from: Imrahil on January 28, 2015, 10:34:10 PM
Maybe. I'm just saying that perhaps "pop culture annals" is overstated. It was a big movie for one generation of people, and I'm sure my son will like it because I do (and he'll have exposure to it), but it's not going to be Star Wars or the Wizard of Oz, I don't think.
Yea, I think I would agree there. My kids absolutely loved both Ghostbusters movies.. my youngest was a Ghostbuster this halloween... I was kind of surprised that it was still a costume for sale. That said, none of the kids we encountered knew what he was supposed to be. "Ghostbusters, cool!" came only from teachers / parents..... So I'm not sure that it's ever been THAT universally adored or timeless. Now I've always loved the original, and grew up with it, but it doesn't crack a spot in my top three Bill Murray vehicles... maybe might not make the top 5 if his extended cameo in Caddyshack was counted. That's not a knock on Ghostbusters, just that Murray's early 80s to mid 90s salad days were just that good. At the risk of completely dismissing Aykroyd and Ramis, that's why GB2 never stood a chance for anything beyond vaguely forgettable, because Murray was at the height of his powers and yet was barely in it.
As far as a call back to the original cast... I think either Murray or Moranis would be great to see again in the "Peck" antagonist role... I think Murray might do it for the right paycheck... Moranis would be a long shot to get out of retirement.
Maybe this time they'll admit that "I aint afraid of no ghosts" actually means they ARE afraid of ghosts.
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 30, 2015, 07:42:23 AM
Maybe this time they'll admit that "I aint afraid of no ghosts" actually means they ARE afraid of ghosts.
Or that they don't care about job security, in that they don't fear the state of having no ghosts to bust.
The whole "all female Ghostbusters" idea reminds me of the end credits bit on Final Sacrifice. With Mike as the sleazy movie producer. "Hell, they're all girls. She's a girl, he's a girl. Everybody in the series is a damn girl!" "Yeah, but Rowsdower..." "A big hairy girl!"
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 30, 2015, 07:52:25 AM
The whole "all female Ghostbusters" idea reminds me of the end credits bit on Final Sacrifice. With Mike as the sleazy movie producer. "Hell, they're all girls. She's a girl, he's a girl. Everybody in the series is a damn girl!" "Yeah, but Rowsdower..." "A big hairy girl!"
And that reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where Graham Chapman is a hollywood movie mogul has hired a bunch of yes men to help him write a movie. Of course, he seems very confused about what he wants which leads to all sorts of the gut-busting rolling on the floor sort of hilarity that I'd expect from them.
Quote from: Soguru on January 30, 2015, 06:04:42 PM
And that reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where Graham Chapman is a hollywood movie mogul has hired a bunch of yes men to help him write a movie. Of course, he seems very confused about what he wants which leads to all sorts of the gut-busting rolling on the floor sort of hilarity that I'd expect from them.
Any idea what the bit is called?
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 30, 2015, 06:43:43 PM
Any idea what the bit is called?
All I remember is that it began with a subtitle that says "Ypres, 1914" with Eric Idle as a soldier playing the harmonica in this really melancholic fashion.
Thanks, Im.
Akroyd decides to toy with our hearts some more. Thinks there could still be a Ghostbusters 3 in addition to the reboot...
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/19/akroyd-still-thinks-his-ghostbusters-3-might-get-made
Quote from: Pak-Man on February 18, 2015, 06:38:03 PM
Akroyd decides to toy with our hearts some more. Thinks there could still be a Ghostbusters 3 in addition to the reboot...
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/19/akroyd-still-thinks-his-ghostbusters-3-might-get-made
the dumb fool
I don't think I want Aykroyd anywhere near the writer's chair.
I don't know what to think of Akroyd anymore. What is he doing?
Quote from: Imrahil on February 18, 2015, 09:21:09 PM
Meh, I'd at least go see an Aykroyd one. Well. I'd watch it on video.
Those who forget Blues Brothers 2000 are doomed to repeat it.
With Harold Ramis gone, its time to let it die...
Aykroyd's a weird one, I get him being in stupid stuff that he created like 'Nothing But Trouble' but he seems to pick scripts at random.
Quote from: Sideswipe on February 19, 2015, 04:24:29 AM
With Harold Ramis gone, its time to let it die...
Or begin it again.
Ackroyd can be really good. He's just not good enough to raise bad material.
Did you guys see him on the SNL special? Ugh...it was the first sketch of the night, and was horribly unfunny.
My problem with him stems from his ideas for Ghostbusters 2. There nothing Ghostbustery about rescuing Dana from Leprechauns in Ireland.
Quote from: The Lurker on February 19, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
My problem with him stems from his ideas for Ghostbusters 2. There nothing Ghostbustery about rescuing Dana from Leprechauns in Ireland.
Ghost Leprechauns? Was he thinking Leprechauns in terms of the horror movie series?
Quote from: Soguru on February 20, 2015, 01:14:25 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on February 19, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
My problem with him stems from his ideas for Ghostbusters 2. There nothing Ghostbustery about rescuing Dana from Leprechauns in Ireland.
Ghost Leprechauns? Was he thinking Leprechauns in terms of the horror movie series?
Nope. Just regular leprechauns.
Quote from: The Lurker on February 20, 2015, 02:39:53 PM
Quote from: Soguru on February 20, 2015, 01:14:25 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on February 19, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
My problem with him stems from his ideas for Ghostbusters 2. There nothing Ghostbustery about rescuing Dana from Leprechauns in Ireland.
Ghost Leprechauns? Was he thinking Leprechauns in terms of the horror movie series?
Nope. Just regular leprechauns.
I... I sincerely hope he was joking. He was, right?
Quote from: Soguru on February 20, 2015, 08:18:38 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on February 20, 2015, 02:39:53 PM
Quote from: Soguru on February 20, 2015, 01:14:25 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on February 19, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
My problem with him stems from his ideas for Ghostbusters 2. There nothing Ghostbustery about rescuing Dana from Leprechauns in Ireland.
Ghost Leprechauns? Was he thinking Leprechauns in terms of the horror movie series?
Nope. Just regular leprechauns.
I... I sincerely hope he was joking. He was, right?
Well I mean they were the antagonists, but I don't think they were exactly like the one from the Leprechauns franchise.
Well now they're thinking Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe!
http://www.avclub.com/article/sony-also-making-another-ghostbusters-men-216309
I knew I shouldn't have wished on that monkey's paw...
I want them to keep announcing movies until we reach impotent nerd-rage critical mass
Curse you Marvel! Why does every movie need its own cinematic universe now?
Quote from: Pak-Man on March 09, 2015, 04:21:48 PM
Well now they're thinking Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe!
http://www.avclub.com/article/sony-also-making-another-ghostbusters-men-216309
I knew I shouldn't have wished on that monkey's paw...
Blech. Blech blech blech.
On one hand, hey, more Ghostbusters.
On the other hand, why don't we just focus on getting the first movie to work before we make that leap.
To be fair, Reitman is on a roll of making great movies that people care about and have heard of like Draft Day, No Strings Attached and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Not to mention Akroyd whose most recent writing credits are Blues Brothers 2000, Coneheads and Nothing But Trouble.
Like all remakes, reboots and sequels what upsets me the most is that movie studios are going to break into my house and take my copy of the original away.
Quote from: ScottotD on March 09, 2015, 05:26:38 PM
Like all remakes, reboots and sequels what upsets me the most is that movie studios are going to break into my house and take my copy of the original away.
You jumped the gun! No one's said to not reboot it yet.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on March 09, 2015, 05:27:42 PM
Quote from: ScottotD on March 09, 2015, 05:26:38 PM
Like all remakes, reboots and sequels what upsets me the most is that movie studios are going to break into my house and take my copy of the original away.
You jumped the gun! No one's said to not reboot it yet.
Speaking of gun, I'm also upset they force me at gunpoint to watch every remake, reboot and sequel when as an adult I could just choose not to see it
Quote from: ScottotD on March 09, 2015, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on March 09, 2015, 05:27:42 PM
Quote from: ScottotD on March 09, 2015, 05:26:38 PM
Like all remakes, reboots and sequels what upsets me the most is that movie studios are going to break into my house and take my copy of the original away.
You jumped the gun! No one's said to not reboot it yet.
Speaking of gun, I'm also upset they force me at gunpoint to watch every remake, reboot and sequel when as an adult I could just choose not to see it
Man, you must have material to burn! Jumping the gun again!
And I feel like you wouldn't even have to wait long...
This is just another movie that A) I won't believe is actually happening until I see a trailer, and B) I definitely will wait for some reviews to come in from people I trust before I see it in a theater.
So now there's another Ghostbusters project coming...with males.
http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/male-driven-ghostbusters-channing-tatum-russo-bros-being-developed
As many as four Ghostbusters movies currently planned:
http://badassdigest.com/2015/03/09/chris-pratt-could-join-the-ghostbusters-expanded-universe/
Actually kind of makes the announcement less gross, but I still would let Dan or Ivan near it.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Henry
Quote from: Henry88 on March 09, 2015, 06:43:23 PM
So now there's another Ghostbusters project coming...with males.
http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/male-driven-ghostbusters-channing-tatum-russo-bros-being-developed
It would be funny if the one with all women turned out to be good, and this one was crap. Just to piss off all the whiners about the gender swap.
Quote from: Darth Geek on March 09, 2015, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: Henry88 on March 09, 2015, 06:43:23 PM
So now there's another Ghostbusters project coming...with males.
http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/male-driven-ghostbusters-channing-tatum-russo-bros-being-developed
It would be funny if the one with all women turned out to be good, and this one was crap. Just to piss off all the whiners about the gender swap.
It sort of would be, but the deck is stacked against them. If they fail, it's because they were women and should have been in a ghostbusters movie poop poop poop, and if they succeed, they've 'improved the brand' and the guys version will, naturally, do better based of the ground work the laid by the Ladybusters.
Quote from: Darth Geek on March 09, 2015, 06:39:29 PM
This is just another movie that A) I won't believe is actually happening until I see a trailer, and B) I definitely will wait for some reviews to come in from people I trust before I see it in a theater.
I saw it. I give it 4 thumbs!
Quote from: Kete on March 09, 2015, 08:17:36 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on March 09, 2015, 06:39:29 PM
This is just another movie that A) I won't believe is actually happening until I see a trailer, and B) I definitely will wait for some reviews to come in from people I trust before I see it in a theater.
I saw it. I give it 4 thumbs!
I don't trust you, Kete. I don't think you're really riding that Sriracha.
It sounds a little like a George Lucasian, "It's what was intended all along," idea with a little bit of evidence, since apparently the original Ghostbusters script involved several competing groups of Ghostbusters all over New York.
Or maybe they'll actually be using the "franchise opportunity" idea that they teased with one line of the original movie and kept trying to work in over decades of video games.
Supreme Court will weigh in soon and male and female Ghostbusters can serve together. Support #ParanormalInvestigationEliminationIntegration
@sirive
Ghostbusters Men should die in the first scene then haha it's another Lady Ghostbusters, tricked all you pieces of shit!
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on March 10, 2015, 05:58:42 AM
@sirive
Ghostbusters Men should die in the first scene then haha it's another Lady Ghostbusters, tricked all you pieces of shit!
LIKE
I'm torn though because I haven't like anything Paul Feig has done but LOVE the Russo Brothers
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on March 10, 2015, 05:58:42 AM
@sirive
Ghostbusters Men should die in the first scene then haha it's another Lady Ghostbusters, tricked all you pieces of shit!
It would be the Executive Decision of lady ghostbuster movies.
They should make both movies with the same script, just reverse all the genders. And release them on the same day.
Quote from: ScottotD on March 10, 2015, 06:04:11 AMI'm torn though because I haven't like anything Paul Feig has done
Not even Freaks and Geeks?
I guess between Feig and the Russos, they're just giving EVERY Arrested Development director a Ghostbusters movie. Could Jay Chandrasekhar be far behind?
Quote from: doggans on March 10, 2015, 12:31:06 PM
Quote from: ScottotD on March 10, 2015, 06:04:11 AMI'm torn though because I haven't like anything Paul Feig has done
Not even Freaks and Geeks?
I guess between Feig and the Russos, they're just giving EVERY Arrested Development director a Ghostbusters movie. Could Jay Chandrasekhar be far behind?
The Broken Lizard gang as a Ghostbuster group would be great!
Just like a dorm full of guys named Bruce I think this is likely to cause a bit of confusion.
The suits.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5MQCdVU.jpg&hash=394986d2672453bbe12091e8248a8bf50abcb484)
In suit but not fully decked out.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcBzfYEk.jpg&hash=ed01e458651e9b89b10e69ed96a02467ea311344)
The pack
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLTM8fjH.jpg&hash=92a836b57e3315f7878333499d520ecbd1420163)
Wiig with pack
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRxtPX6n.jpg&hash=e1dc6eb84a48ce2ab394e9a25f6b421116118a7c)
I think we can stop calling it Ghostbusters 3 because it's a reboot.
I refuse to call it Ghostbusters at all.
Grow up.
Quote from: ScottotD on June 30, 2015, 07:29:04 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 30, 2015, 06:47:38 PM
Grow up.
Like
Seconded.
It's called Ghostbusters because that is what they are doing: busting ghosts. While yes, I'd rather it be a sequel or just not done at all. But at least they aren't playing the same characters from the original.
I hope it's not a frame by frame remake like the Poltergeist and Psycho remakes.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 30, 2015, 06:47:38 PM
Waaaaaaaa, your differing opinion upsets me! Waaaaaaa!
Who is the one that needs to grow up?
The one who is rewriting people's posts to try and make them sound baby-ish?
Thats pretty much what your original post was.
I didn't rewrite anything.
Quote from: Sideswipe on June 30, 2015, 08:21:29 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 30, 2015, 06:47:38 PM
Waaaaaaaa, your differing opinion upsets me! Waaaaaaa!
Who is the one that needs to grow up?
The one that refuses to call a movie by it's name?
Quote from: The Lurker on June 30, 2015, 08:17:56 PM
I hope it's not a frame by frame remake like the Poltergeist and Psycho remakes.
First of all, that's not what the Poltergeist remake was. Second of all, no. There are almost no movies, good or bad, that do that.
Quote from: Sideswipe on June 30, 2015, 08:21:29 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 30, 2015, 06:47:38 PM
Waaaaaaaa, your differing opinion upsets me! Waaaaaaa!
Who is the one that needs to grow up?
The one who actually tyoed the sounds a child makes. This is basically at the same level as repeating the words back at someone in a mocking tone and saying "That's what you sound like". Also in the "no, you are" ball park.
It pretty much directly copied the first one, including keeping a chunk of the original lines.
Except it's not frame per frame. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it (having not seen it), but a "chunk" of dialogue is not the same as frame by frame, which is specifically a visual thing.
Anyhoo, I wouldn't worry about the Ghostbusters, at least in terms of being a direct copy. Paul Feig doesn't have a perfect record, but he definitely knows character and you would have no understanding of characters and acting to know that Venkman is essentially all about Bill Murray. In all likelihood, he's building characters that work on the strengths of the actresses, which means they'll deal with and react to situation in a different way than the previous Ghostbusters.
Except Melissa McCarthy's strength is making overweight people look ridiculous. I hope they don't do that.
Quote from: Kete on July 03, 2015, 06:33:24 AM
Except Melissa McCarthy's strength is making overweight people look ridiculous. I hope they don't do that.
Considering that's apparently avoided in Spy, I'm hopeful.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 03, 2015, 06:51:26 AM
Quote from: Kete on July 03, 2015, 06:33:24 AM
Except Melissa McCarthy's strength is making overweight people look ridiculous. I hope they don't do that.
Considering that's apparently avoided in Spy, I'm hopeful.
It is better in Spy. They play up more that she looks like a housewife or a cat lady than focusing on her weight. Her best role so far is in St Vincent.
I'm really looking forward to this. I think it's going to be better than the original... if they play their cards right.
Well THAT'S a bold proclamation, but I'm pretty sure it will be better than a lot of the grumblers are grumbling.
Quote from: Soguru on July 03, 2015, 06:16:17 PM
I'm really looking forward to this. I think it's going to be better than the original... if they play their cards right.
Thats not a very funny joke.
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 04, 2015, 05:10:42 AM
Quote from: Soguru on July 03, 2015, 06:16:17 PM
I'm really looking forward to this. I think it's going to be better than the original... if they play their cards right.
Thats not a very funny joke.
No, I'm serious. I think the writers know they have this huge weight on their shoulders, kind of similar to the weight on JJ Abrams shoulders with Star Wars, except maybe not as heavy a weight. I'm really hoping but thinking that they are working their hardest and trying their damndest to make something great.
Its best to keep your expectations low. No way this movie even comes close to the original. This is a cash grab, plain and simple. Thats the reason for the all women gimmick. It will be forgotten about six months after its release, just like the Total Recall and Robocop remakes.
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 04, 2015, 07:50:55 AM
Its best to keep your expectations low. No way this movie even comes close to the original. This is a cash grab, plain and simple. Thats the reason for the all women gimmick. It will be forgotten about six months after its release, just like the Total Recall and Robocop remakes.
I will remain cautiously optimistic. I really hope you're wrong about the cash grab thing. I doubt these women would come aboard for this movie if it was nothing more than that.
It seems to me like the whole all-woman gimmick is an attempt to make this enough different from the original that it won't just be forgotten.
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 04, 2015, 07:50:55 AM
Its best to keep your expectations low. No way this movie even comes close to the original. This is a cash grab, plain and simple. Thats the reason for the all women gimmick. It will be forgotten about six months after its release, just like the Total Recall and Robocop remakes.
Because nothing sells tickets like all-female casts. If you want to make money in show business, either you're Brad Pitt or a female comedian, as the old adage goes. Totall cash grab.
I didnt say it was going to break any box office records, its using the name and female cast gimmick to make an easy buck.
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 04, 2015, 02:21:19 PM
I didnt say it was going to break any box office records, its using the name and female cast gimmick to make an easy buck.
But the much easier and quicker buck would be to use the original cast, and if not that then another male cast. No one was asking for an all female cast, and I'm sure the creators were expecting a lot of people to hate the idea. Someone made that choice and fought for it because it's what they wanted to do.
Not to say it'll be any good. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I don't care for any of the chosen actresses. But it really doesn't feel like a decision based on money, especially considering how hostile nerds on the internet (Ghostbuster's core audience) get toward women.
They cant use the original cast, so that is out. Using an all male team would not necessarily be easier because of the reputation remakes are getting due to sub par movies like the a fore mentioned Robocop and Total Recall. Using all women doesnt sound like so bad of an idea when the very premise will draw a lot of publicity and when it does flop the studio can always make excuses that internet haters caused it to.
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 04, 2015, 03:11:50 PM
They cant use the original cast, so that is out. Using an all male team would not necessarily be easier because of the reputation remakes are getting due to sub par movies like the a fore mentioned Robocop and Total Recall. Using all women doesnt sound like so bad of an idea when the very premise will draw a lot of publicity and when it does flop the studio can always make excuses that internet haters caused it to.
Yes, but even that amount of thought by business executives puts it one step above "lazy remake".
Ultimately you are correct in that it is best to lower expectations. Softening the blow if it sucks, and actually managing to impress if it is good.
You idiots. The gimmick is that they are busting ghosts, not that they are women.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 04, 2015, 06:20:25 PM
You idiots. The gimmick is that they are busting ghosts, not that they are women.
:clap:
Just keep telling yourself that.
You must be pretty bummed about reddit going dark, but don't make us suffer for it.
I dont use reddit. Also, stop being a baby again.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmayaraemusic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2FFedora.jpg&hash=23ebed35a0d8dfa5b1833c83def7d4afe3da3e7d)
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 04, 2015, 03:11:50 PM
Using all women doesnt sound like so bad of an idea when the very premise will draw a lot of publicity and when it does flop the studio can always make excuses that internet haters caused it to.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJk7RsLWUAAZg1K.jpg)
Know what? I'm gonna let myself get excited. Maybe the movie will let me down. Don't know. But for the time between now and the release of this movie, I'm just gonna let myself be thrilled to death that more Ghostbusters is coming to the big screen.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth of misogynist diaper men begin....
I am convinced this is gonna be a great movie. :) Should be lotsa great fun!!!
Quote from: MightyBombJack on July 10, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth of misogynist diaper men begin....
If I didn't see people endlessly harping on about the apparently backlash I would never have heard about it.
I'd like to think we're finally coming to the point in history where we are all accepting of each other in ways that we always should have: Everyone is equal.
Quote from: MightyBombJack on July 10, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth of misogynist diaper men begin....
I worry about who's keeping an eye on video game journalism while this is happening, women might get girl germs all over it!
^^That would be a like...^^
Quote from: BathTub on July 10, 2015, 08:39:21 PM
Quote from: MightyBombJack on July 10, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth of misogynist diaper men begin....
If I didn't see people endlessly harping on about the apparently backlash I would never have heard about it.
Follow Paul Feig on Twitter and you can see plenty of it.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 11, 2015, 05:56:23 PM
Quote from: BathTub on July 10, 2015, 08:39:21 PM
Quote from: MightyBombJack on July 10, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth of misogynist diaper men begin....
If I didn't see people endlessly harping on about the apparently backlash I would never have heard about it.
Follow Paul Feig on Twitter and you can see plenty of it.
And there's also the cesspool known as Youtube comments.
Yeah but who's stupid enough to read twitter or youtube comments?
There's been manbaby comments in this tread. Are you stupid enough to read this thread?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 11, 2015, 08:46:40 PM
There's been manbaby comments in this tread. Are you stupid enough to read this thread?
stupid manbabies need the most attention.
Not necessarily, but you are judging a movie based on only the barest minimum of information.
Quote from: Imrahil on July 12, 2015, 10:28:25 PM
So if you don't like this, does that automatically make you a sexist manbaby misogynist?
If the reason you don't like it is because it stars women, yes.
Write over? They are going to let you keep your DVDs when this comes out.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 12, 2015, 10:49:41 PM
Write over? They are going to let you keep your DVDs when this comes out.
WHAAAA?! but ...but ...but surely whenever there's a remake or adaptation the studio sneaks into your house, replaces your copy of the original and then performs an operation on you removing all your memories of it! Otherwise people complaining about them would just be ridiculous children wouldn't they?!
Quote from: Imrahil on July 12, 2015, 10:40:45 PM
Quote from: Pak-Man on July 12, 2015, 10:36:54 PM
Not necessarily, but you are judging a movie based on only the barest minimum of information.
So are all the people who are super happy about it, aren't they?
Some people are excited about the idea of a new Ghostbusters movie. Some people are excited about a new comedy lead by funny women. Some people are excited about the combination of those two things. All of that makes sense.
The idea of being upset about a movie that you don't have to see is silly.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 12, 2015, 11:39:50 PM
The idea of being upset that a movie that you don't have to see is silly.
YES
Quote from: Imrahil on July 13, 2015, 12:10:40 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 12, 2015, 10:49:41 PM
Write over? They are going to let you keep your DVDs when this comes out.
So you really don't understand what I'm talking about? Or are you just being difficult?
I don't at all understand how you could have a problem with a reboot rebooting something that laid dormant for more than 25 years, no. And, since neither of us has seen it yet, we actually have no idea if they do in fact reference the first film at all, if they will act like the first films were 'not good or embarrassing,' or what shape the reboot will have.
This hasn't stopped you from getting Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudsen in a new Ghostbusters. Time and Ghostbusters 2 did that.
Now, you have a chance at maybe a great new film in the vein of the thing you love. And if you're not interested in that, you have the same amount of Ghostbusters you had before this happened.
You're mad at something you don't have to see, that isn't taking anything away from you. And - if you give it a chance - you might even like it.
I am opposed to remaking well received classic movies in general. I dont get the point of it, other than the money.
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 13, 2015, 05:34:29 AM
I am opposed to remaking well received classic movies in general. I dont get the point of it, other than the money.
yeah, fuck
the magnificent seven! those greedy assholes!
Taking a samurai movie and remaking it as a western when westerns were massively popular, you could probably argue that.
Quote from: goflyblind on July 13, 2015, 05:37:01 AM
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 13, 2015, 05:34:29 AM
I am opposed to remaking well received classic movies in general. I dont get the point of it, other than the money.
yeah, fuck the magnificent seven! those greedy assholes!
Don't forget the greedy hacks that ruined The Wizard of Oz, The Departed, A Fistfull of Dollars, Scarface, The Fly and The Maltese Falcon.
Now you are pulling a Just_The_Trax. I never said anything about remakes always ruining them, even though a lot of modern remakes suck ass.
Quote from: goflyblind on July 13, 2015, 05:37:01 AM
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 13, 2015, 05:34:29 AM
I am opposed to remaking well received classic movies in general. I dont get the point of it, other than the money.
yeah, fuck the magnificent seven! those greedy assholes!
But in all honesty, fuck
The Ridiculous Six. Seriously, fuck those guys. Greedy, racist hacks.
Quote from: ScottotD on July 13, 2015, 06:21:17 AM
Quote from: goflyblind on July 13, 2015, 05:37:01 AM
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 13, 2015, 05:34:29 AM
I am opposed to remaking well received classic movies in general. I dont get the point of it, other than the money.
yeah, fuck the magnificent seven! those greedy assholes!
Don't forget the greedy hacks that ruined The Wizard of Oz, The Departed, A Fistfull of Dollars, Scarface, The Fly and The Maltese Falcon.
Also, just out of curiosity, how many of those original movies came even close to the popularity that Ghostbusters has?
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 13, 2015, 07:06:11 AM
Quote from: ScottotD on July 13, 2015, 06:21:17 AM
Quote from: goflyblind on July 13, 2015, 05:37:01 AM
Quote from: Sideswipe on July 13, 2015, 05:34:29 AM
I am opposed to remaking well received classic movies in general. I dont get the point of it, other than the money.
yeah, fuck the magnificent seven! those greedy assholes!
Don't forget the greedy hacks that ruined The Wizard of Oz, The Departed, A Fistfull of Dollars, Scarface, The Fly and The Maltese Falcon.
Also, just out of curiosity, how many of those original movies came even close to the popularity that Ghostbusters has?
They were all incredibly popular, that's why I used them to make fun of your dumb argument
Pretty sure The Wizard of Oz has been seen by more people than Ghostbusters ten times over...
Quote from: Pak-Man on July 13, 2015, 07:31:11 AM
Pretty sure The Wizard of Oz has been seen by more people than Ghostbusters ten times over...
I believe he's referring to a 1925 silent film that came before. Had to google that one myself.
Yes, the originals. Most people dont even know that the 1939 version of Wizard of Oz is a remake. No one gives a shit about the original versions of those movies, they have been reduced to obscurity or near obscurity.
The original Fly with Vincent Price is still rather popular.
Ah. I get it, now.
It's worth noting that this isn't a remake, though. They're not going to be telling the same story with Zuel, Vince Clortho, Gozer, Stay-Puft, and all that. (At least I'm pretty sure they aren't.) It's a new story with new characters that may or may not acknowledge the existence of the original. So it's less like The Amazing Spider-Man and more like- I dunno, actually.. I can't think of an example right now where they've stripped everything away from the original except for the concept and tools.
Yeah, I heard the villain is going to be new.
Fans of the Bowery Boys were outraged when Ghostbusters was announced in the 80s.
Quote from: Imrahil on July 13, 2015, 07:16:54 PM
Okay, you obviously don't understand. That's fine. Maybe you can stop being a knob about it.
If your point isn't covered by what I said above (and I think it was) then you have failed to communicate it. Don't get mad at me.
The post of mine you just quoted was directed at Sideswipe's remake tirade, and not what you said, btw.
MAH CHILDHOOOOOOODS!!!! :angry:
Quote from: The Lurker on July 13, 2015, 08:46:33 AM
Yeah, I heard the villain is going to be new.
I hope so. But I would be surprised if they didn't have Stay Puft Marshmallow Man and Slimer in there somewhere.
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 13, 2015, 08:35:22 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 13, 2015, 08:46:33 AM
Yeah, I heard the villain is going to be new.
I hope so. But I would be surprised if they didn't have Stay Puft Marshmallow Man and Slimer in there somewhere.
I think Slimer is inevitable. Can't really imagine more than a Stay Puft reference, but we'll see!
Quote from: goflyblind on July 12, 2015, 05:39:21 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 11, 2015, 08:46:40 PM
There's been manbaby comments in this tread. Are you stupid enough to read this thread?
stupid manbabies need the most attention.
Making sure Simpsons' references don't go unnoticed is the "like" button's top function.
More shots of the Ecto-1:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2F3c3c6ce08215d9ed010ba065ef5214a1%2Ftumblr_nr5i9nSZae1qz8vumo1_540.jpg&hash=fdfd378b506af59c5e12aafae8549d48b47fa481)
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2Fef4541f869b807ab8f3c0e5e320abd96%2Ftumblr_nr5i9nSZae1qz8vumo2_540.jpg&hash=047a82c1221b8a9115eff7242b45eb6c09d67a40)
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2F5b967a884058fbe938d7083a23da3c94%2Ftumblr_nr5i9nSZae1qz8vumo3_400.jpg&hash=966a9c796b13dbc95828461cd24bb2b6f44c477c)
Quote from: The Lurker on July 14, 2015, 06:40:15 AM
More shots of the Ecto-1:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2Fef4541f869b807ab8f3c0e5e320abd96%2Ftumblr_nr5i9nSZae1qz8vumo2_540.jpg&hash=047a82c1221b8a9115eff7242b45eb6c09d67a40)
What is the bit in small print on the sign? I like the Stay Back Over 500 Feet
"Not Responsible for Damage."
If I had a nicer car I would want that hood ornament for it.
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 14, 2015, 07:35:16 AM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 14, 2015, 06:40:15 AM
More shots of the Ecto-1:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2Fef4541f869b807ab8f3c0e5e320abd96%2Ftumblr_nr5i9nSZae1qz8vumo2_540.jpg&hash=047a82c1221b8a9115eff7242b45eb6c09d67a40)
What is the bit in small print on the sign? I like the Stay Back Over 500 Feet
It says "Caution: Woman driver" AM I RIGHT FELLAS!?
;D :clap:
OK, NOW I think the new Ghostbusters is going to be terrible:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.onionstatic.com%2Favclub%2F5493%2F84%2Foriginal%2F640.jpg&hash=ca1b414ccb1bb2a61fc43a44851746adde1568cd)
Depends on how much involvement he has.
I'm just joking, he's just doing a cameo.
will he be hawking skull-shaped vodka a la wayne's world pepsi-reebok-pizza hut?
I wouldn't be surprised if he thought they were really ghostbusting.
Quote from: BathTub on July 16, 2015, 07:33:35 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if he thought they were really ghostbusting.
so i guess everyone dose not like this guy.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 14, 2015, 06:40:15 AM
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2F5b967a884058fbe938d7083a23da3c94%2Ftumblr_nr5i9nSZae1qz8vumo3_400.jpg&hash=966a9c796b13dbc95828461cd24bb2b6f44c477c)
Now that is awesome, and kind of funny. Best part of the new car design.
I have a ford focus but I am hoping that somehow they will offer that as a novelty hood ornament.
Quote from: Imrahil on July 17, 2015, 12:20:23 AM
Or buttplug!
That's a great idea. I can see it in the ads in the Sunday paper. ;D
Quote from: Soguru on July 17, 2015, 01:11:19 AM
Quote from: Imrahil on July 17, 2015, 12:20:23 AM
Or buttplug!
That's a great idea. I can see it in the ads in the Sunday paper. ;D
Ouch. He's shaped like a little arrow head.
Character names revealed:
http://www.superherohype.com/news/347897-who-you-gonna-call-ghostbusters-names-revealed#/slide/1
Nothing really good or bad about the character names. But they are certainly playing completely different characters than in the original. The question now is whether they will have different personalities than the original, or if it'll be the case of "oh, that's the Venkman one, that's the Egon one, etc."
They have been doing a bunch of filming here in Boston. A lot of friends have been seeing the ECTO-1 around!
So it will be a new origin story, that's good, if the characters are new so the actors don't even think about trying to imitate the original ones then it has a chance at being funny.
But I hope the use of the word "warriors" doesn't mean it's going to be serious with some comedy, it's really got to be straight up comedy to work.
I still like my idea that I posted in the Top 80s Movies LoC. Let Guillermo Del Toro make his big At The Mountains Of Madness movie, and then the Ghostbusters reboot is the sequel to that, when all the creatures get to New York.
http://www.vanyaland.com/2015/07/17/heabangers-call-ghostbusters-casting-heavy-metal-extras-for-concert-scene/#.VamDkE (http://www.vanyaland.com/2015/07/17/heabangers-call-ghostbusters-casting-heavy-metal-extras-for-concert-scene/#.VamDkE)
http://screencrush.com/ivan-reitman-on-new-ghostbusters/ (http://screencrush.com/ivan-reitman-on-new-ghostbusters/)
Quote from: The Lurker on July 30, 2015, 04:44:45 PM
http://screencrush.com/ivan-reitman-on-new-ghostbusters/ (http://screencrush.com/ivan-reitman-on-new-ghostbusters/)
Well the earlier stories were about Sony wanting to do a "shared universe" thing with Ghostbusters. But that didn't mean those other movies were actually in major preproduction. Most likely they will wait to see how this new one does at the box office and then jump on the others if it's successful and popular with the public.
Personally I think the idea of a shared universe type thing with Ghostbusters makes NO sense. The whole point of the Marvel movies (and the Universal monster movies way back when) was that it was interesting to see different characters with different abilities interact. But male of female, all the Ghostbusters are people in the same colored jumpsuits with the same proton packs. The only way they could make it interesting is if they had Ghostbusters interacting with other type of paranormal fighters. Maybe people who actually used magic instead of technology to fight ghosts and monsters.
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 30, 2015, 05:49:46 PM
The only way they could make it interesting is if they had Ghostbusters interacting with other type of paranormal fighters.
they could have michael j. fox's character from frighteners show up. y'know, really shake things up.
Quote from: goflyblind on July 30, 2015, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 30, 2015, 05:49:46 PM
The only way they could make it interesting is if they had Ghostbusters interacting with other type of paranormal fighters.
they could have michael j. fox's character from frighteners show up. y'know, really shake things up.
Uh, all Slimers team. It will be the next Minions.
They kind of did that with the Extreme Ghostbusters and had the two teams meet up. And IDW had The Real Ghostbusters and the movie ones meet up.
Rod and Todd tell me that all the time too.
http://www.avclub.com/article/new-ghostbusters-visit-childrens-hospital-fanboys--223286
That was friggin' awesome! And you know what's also great? If there's any spirits haunting the hallways or any Demons that need exorcising, they're already there! I'll take the Ghostbusters over Father Merrin any day.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on August 03, 2015, 05:40:57 PM
http://www.avclub.com/article/new-ghostbusters-visit-childrens-hospital-fanboys--223286
For about a half second, I thought that they meant the TV show Children's Hospital.
Bill Murray could show up in the Ghostbusters reboot and further confuse fans trying to form allegiances!
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/08/09/bill-murray-will-appear-in-the-new-ghostbusters-film
Scorecard:
Dan Aykroyd - In It
Bill Murray - In it
Harold Ramis - Can't be in it.
Ernie Hudson - Reportedly waiting for that phone call...
Quote from: Pak-Man on August 09, 2015, 11:52:14 AM
Bill Murray could show up in the Ghostbusters reboot and further confuse fans trying to form allegiances!
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/08/09/bill-murray-will-appear-in-the-new-ghostbusters-film
Scorecard:
Dan Aykroyd - In It
Bill Murray - In it
Harold Ramis - Can't be in it.
Ernie Hudson - Reportedly waiting for that phone call...
There is no excuse they shouldn't at least try to get Ernie Hudson to appear in the movie. Oh, what about Annie Potts?
Yeah, Annie Potts is great, I'd like to see her again. And I'd at least like to see them try to get Rick Moranis to do a cameo.
It does seem weird that Murray would delay it for soooo long and then agree to it. I wonder if that means they rote a really funny character for him to be in his cameo, so he's not just Venkman, or somebody on the street.
Quote from: Darth Geek on August 09, 2015, 02:34:06 PM
Yeah, Annie Potts is great, I'd like to see her again. And I'd at least like to see them try to get Rick Moranis to do a cameo.
It does seem weird that Murray would delay it for soooo long and then agree to it. I wonder if that means they rote a really funny character for him to be in his cameo, so he's not just Venkman, or somebody on the street.
Or maybe he trust's the current team to be funnier than the team that was putting together GB3 (The Year One writers were attached)
That... that's a bullet dodged.
Wasn't Ernie Hudson a dick about the concept or something? which I sort of understand, I'm sure he'd love the payday/work
Quote from: ScottotD on August 10, 2015, 04:33:29 AM
Wasn't Ernie Hudson a dick about the concept or something? which I sort of understand, I'm sure he'd love the payday/work
No more that Murray, who supposedly shredded one of the scripts they sent him and sent back the peices.
Quote from: Darth Geek on August 10, 2015, 03:54:48 PM
Quote from: ScottotD on August 10, 2015, 04:33:29 AM
Wasn't Ernie Hudson a dick about the concept or something? which I sort of understand, I'm sure he'd love the payday/work
No more that Murray, who supposedly shredded one of the scripts they sent him and sent back the peices.
I mean the concept of this movie
Quote from: ScottotD on August 10, 2015, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on August 10, 2015, 03:54:48 PM
Quote from: ScottotD on August 10, 2015, 04:33:29 AM
Wasn't Ernie Hudson a dick about the concept or something? which I sort of understand, I'm sure he'd love the payday/work
No more that Murray, who supposedly shredded one of the scripts they sent him and sent back the peices.
I mean the concept of this movie
Yeah, I vaguely remember that. I think his problem was more that it wouldn't star him, since as you said, he could really use the paycheck.
I am wondering what their cameos are going to be. They won't be their original characters, so I hope it's something creative and not just the Ghostbusters pasing them on the street.
I really want Murray to play some asshole who thinks women can't be Ghostbusters only to be killed/punched/made fun of
Photo of Bill Murray on set:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg09.deviantart.net%2Fcb98%2Fi%2F2012%2F186%2F2%2Fb%2Fstay_puft_marshmallow_man_2_by_graelyn_chan-d564jvt.jpg&hash=bb7b119637aa76d1f77a82226f2e73f3bcf1c692)
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on August 03, 2015, 05:40:57 PM
http://www.avclub.com/article/new-ghostbusters-visit-childrens-hospital-fanboys--223286
Wait.. what?? The Ghostbusters are womens now?
Quote from: ScottotD on August 10, 2015, 09:44:17 PM
I really want Murray to play some asshole who thinks women can't be Ghostbusters only to be killed/punched/made fun of
Murray as the new new Walter Peck equivalent would be awesome.
Quote from: Darth Geek on August 11, 2015, 04:31:04 AM
Quote from: ScottotD on August 10, 2015, 09:44:17 PM
I really want Murray to play some asshole who thinks women can't be Ghostbusters only to be killed/punched/made fun of
Murray as the new new Walter Peck equivalent would be awesome.
I had the same thought. Or maybe the mayor.
Quote from: Kete on August 11, 2015, 07:02:10 AM
Quote from: Darth Geek on August 11, 2015, 04:31:04 AM
Quote from: ScottotD on August 10, 2015, 09:44:17 PM
I really want Murray to play some asshole who thinks women can't be Ghostbusters only to be killed/punched/made fun of
Murray as the new new Walter Peck equivalent would be awesome.
I had the same thought. Or maybe the mayor.
You beat me to that thought by seconds. Either would be awesome to see.
I was hoping Amy Schumer would appear as the fifth Ghostbuster. Seriously, she'd be awesome.
Quote from: RoninFox on August 11, 2015, 07:03:04 AM
Quote from: Kete on August 11, 2015, 07:02:10 AM
Quote from: Darth Geek on August 11, 2015, 04:31:04 AM
Quote from: ScottotD on August 10, 2015, 09:44:17 PM
I really want Murray to play some asshole who thinks women can't be Ghostbusters only to be killed/punched/made fun of
Murray as the new new Walter Peck equivalent would be awesome.
I had the same thought. Or maybe the mayor.
You beat me to that thought by seconds. Either would be awesome to see.
Quote from: comingsoon.netFans were ecstatic to learn that longtime holdout Bill Murray had finally relented and agreed to a Ghostbusters cameo in Paul Feig's upcoming reboot. He already shot the cameo in Boston and is rumored to be playing, in a reversal on Peter Venkman, a ghost debunker.
in somewhat unrelated news, Ghost Bunkers are where the undead like to hide just in case of war. Where you gonna hide?
I just realized something. Is Chris Hemsworth's character going to be the one that is asked if he's a God?
Considering they're not using the Gozer storyline, probably not. That and he's the Janine stand-in.
I got the joke!
Cuz Hemsworth played a God...
Yay?
http://comicbook.com/2015/09/25/sigourney-weaver-confirmed-for-ghostbusters-reboot/ (http://comicbook.com/2015/09/25/sigourney-weaver-confirmed-for-ghostbusters-reboot/)
I hope every original cast member has the same, solitary line, scattered throughout the film.
"Hey, girls! I just wanted to check in and see how the reboot was going!" Exeunt
Quote from: The Lurker on September 25, 2015, 02:04:46 PM
Yay?
http://comicbook.com/2015/09/25/sigourney-weaver-confirmed-for-ghostbusters-reboot/ (http://comicbook.com/2015/09/25/sigourney-weaver-confirmed-for-ghostbusters-reboot/)
MORE WOMEN?!? BOOOOOO
Quote from: Pak-Man on September 25, 2015, 02:48:22 PM
I hope every original cast member has the same, solitary line, scattered throughout the film.
"Hey, girls! I just wanted to check in and see how the reboot was going!" Exeunt
Interestingly, all their characters are IT guys.
I want to see a Robot called Ghostbusters the Robot thru some cheesy misunderstanding... no I don't.
Personally I prefer Batman the Horse (and If Mandy Patankin was A Horse).
This is intriguing...
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/10/02/a-ghostbusters-animated-movie-is-in-the-works
Maybe I'm imagining things,
but it looks like a blatant political agenda "disguised" as popular entertainment.
And maybe the most insidious thing being the smug non-disguise.
Normalizing it.
But of course I may also be inappropriately imagining all of this.
I don't mind the Ghostbusters getting remade. Ghostbusters 2 was so disappointing. The thing is, for me, Ghostbusters is Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, and Dan Aykroyd shooting the breeze. The screenwriter/director/cast would have to win the favor of some interdimensional god to capture that lightning in a bottle with a new cast.
Now, agenda? I don't think so. This is about money and a safe bet.
Quote from: RobThom on October 10, 2015, 11:30:38 AM
Maybe I'm imagining things,
but it looks like a blatant political agenda "disguised" as popular entertainment.
And maybe the most insidious thing being the smug non-disguise.
Normalizing it.
But of course I may also be inappropriately imagining all of this.
This is getting dangerously close to needing to move to the politics section of the board, but there is nothing insidious about making a comedy movie starring women and treating it as normal.
I just got a cool inspiration... what if in the new movie there's a scene where they were trying to approve the new ghostbusters in a senate and just as they are about to, the ghosts of dead presidents appear and object?
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ew.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fi%2F2015%2F12%2F17%2Fghostbusters.jpg&hash=7b726040a7d2fe61ffe7bd44350e2eaa68263305)
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-img.instyle.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2F480xflex%2Fpublic%2F1450365841%2F121715-ghoastbusters-poster.jpg%3Fitok%3DoIMwbQ-G&hash=05c5e482af60eac755783d00f9e64ab406796ab3)
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2-2.timeinc.net%2Fpeople%2Fi%2F2015%2Fnews%2F151221%2Fghostbusters-435.jpg&hash=e09435cc39ac2daf42f7bc675b1aef273dba2665)
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ghostbusters-poster-kate-mckinnon.jpeg?quality=75&strip=color&w=550)
Those are pretty cool...
I like it. Although I wonder why they went out of their way to make the women's skin to look so rough.
Can we expect the original theme song? please please please?
Quote from: Soguru on December 17, 2015, 11:24:32 AM
Can we expect the original theme song? please please please?
At least during the closing credits I would guess. Hard to imagine any version of Ghostbusters without it.
Unless the Ghostbusters movie involves a giant Gorilla in a safari hat...
Which in itself would come with a catchy song.
I was surprised when the Ghostbusters crossover comic had a nod to that, considering the legal wrangling they must have done.
Between both Ghostbusters cartoons, imagine all the confusion kids had to endure during the 80's.
I lived it. "Why are there two Ghostbusters cartoons and why is one so much closer to the source material than the other?" The prevailing theory on the playground at the time was that the Ghost Busters were distant relatives of The Real Ghostbusters in the future, and that's why they had the crazy gadgets. It wasn't a rock solid theory, but it worked on pre-teen me. :^)
Quote from: Pak-Man on December 17, 2015, 11:53:18 AM
I lived it. "Why are there two Ghostbusters cartoons and why is one so much closer to the source material than the other?" The prevailing theory on the playground at the time was that the Ghost Busters were distant relatives of The Real Ghostbusters in the future, and that's why they had the crazy gadgets. It wasn't a rock solid theory, but it worked on pre-teen me. :^)
I remember having vague discussions about it with other kids on the playground... but I think we said that the bad guy from the other Ghostbusters cartoon (Prime-Evil) was a close relative of the bad guy from the Pac Man cartoon (Mezmaron), and that Pac-man was actually the original Ghostbuster.
For some reason I never saw The Filmation Ghostbusters cartoon as a kid, and was only aware of The Real Ghostbusters. It was still confusing, as I was left wondering why a tv show would claim that the animated version was "real" as compared to the only other version I knew, featuring live actors.
Wait....these Ghostbusters are all girls? WTF?
Quote from: Kete on December 17, 2015, 12:43:17 PM
Wait....these Ghostbusters are all girls? WTF?
I am laughing because I know you're being sarcastic.
I was really hoping somebody would comment on my Mezmaron and Prime Evil might be twin brothers theory.
I might be the only one with the nerd cred to reply to that one, and I've got nothin'. :^)
Quote from: RoninFox on December 17, 2015, 12:33:32 PM
For some reason I never saw The Filmation Ghostbusters cartoon as a kid, and was only aware of The Real Ghostbusters. It was still confusing, as I was left wondering why a tv show would claim that the animated version was "real" as compared to the only other version I knew, featuring live actors.
I never watched the other Ghost Busters show either as a kid. I think at one point I just saw a picture of it, or maybe a commercial, and it looked sooooo stupid!
Quote from: Darth Geek on December 17, 2015, 05:04:29 PM
Quote from: RoninFox on December 17, 2015, 12:33:32 PM
For some reason I never saw The Filmation Ghostbusters cartoon as a kid, and was only aware of The Real Ghostbusters. It was still confusing, as I was left wondering why a tv show would claim that the animated version was "real" as compared to the only other version I knew, featuring live actors.
I never watched the other Ghost Busters show either as a kid. I think at one point I just saw a picture of it, or maybe a commercial, and it looked sooooo stupid!
Haha! Wow! Lil Darth Geek, the same as big Darth Geek.
The one with the Gorilla? I loved that, I had way more of those toys than the 'Real' Ghostbusters
Quote from: ScottotD on December 17, 2015, 05:44:50 PM
The one with the Gorilla? I loved that, I had way more of those toys than the 'Real' Ghostbusters
I didn't have toys for either, but I also preferred the Ghostbusters cartoon to the Real Ghostbusters.
I preferred the Real one, but I don't think I was aware of Filmation at the time. The series could be really good at times and had a very good portrayal of Janine for awhile. That said as well-written as the Samhain episode was, it also has the most animation errors, including accidental Egon clone.
It was definitely better at the start of its run before Slimer went full-Urkel and took over the show.
Yeah, unfortunately the show got hit hard by consultant meddling, enough to make JMS leave the show.
http://www.themarysue.com/leslie-jones-wrecks-twitter-trolls/
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXawI66WEAI2H1u.png)
How exactly will my current life change when my childhood is altered by a movie being made that nobody will ever make me see?
Quote from: The Lurker on December 29, 2015, 12:04:37 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXawI66WEAI2H1u.png)
Isn't that the same picture that was released months ago?
Nevermind. Here's the new one.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscreencrush.com%2F442%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F12%2Fhaunting-ew-0-ghostbusters_0.jpg%3Fw%3D720%26amp%3Bcdnnode%3D1&hash=f58993606d65133c89dfeb5691d62bc5fd62bb7b)
Quote from: The Lurker on December 29, 2015, 01:23:02 PM
Nevermind. Here's the new one.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscreencrush.com%2F442%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F12%2Fhaunting-ew-0-ghostbusters_0.jpg%3Fw%3D720%26amp%3Bcdnnode%3D1&hash=f58993606d65133c89dfeb5691d62bc5fd62bb7b)
They busted a haunted firetruck?
Women drivers ::)
Nevermind. Here's the new one.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscreencrush.com%2F442%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F12%2Fhaunting-ew-0-ghostbusters_0.jpg%3Fw%3D720%26amp%3Bcdnnode%3D1&hash=f58993606d65133c89dfeb5691d62bc5fd62bb7b)
A new plot point involves the new Ghostbusters team's inability to differentiate between ghosts and public servants, with tragic results.
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on December 31, 2015, 01:59:13 PM
Nevermind. Here's the new one.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscreencrush.com%2F442%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F12%2Fhaunting-ew-0-ghostbusters_0.jpg%3Fw%3D720%26amp%3Bcdnnode%3D1&hash=f58993606d65133c89dfeb5691d62bc5fd62bb7b)
A new plot point involves the new Ghostbusters team's inability to differentiate between ghosts and public servants, with tragic results.
The old Ghostbusters almost burned a maid to death on their first fully equipped case, not that big a stretch.
I just hope they have good on-screen chemistry and the right charisma. That's what ironically concerns me the most.
Quote from: Russell Soguru on December 31, 2015, 08:50:41 PM
I just hope they have good on-screen chemistry and the right charisma. That's what ironically concerns me the most.
Agreed. If they are to retain any of the vibe from the original then it should be the banter between them that gets most of the laughs.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaQcFgAUUAAvHuF.jpg)
It has returned!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbf9vjrWIAEILD0.jpg)
I dunno if I trust Hi-C that doesn't come in a pouch...
Anyone want to try and guess the character Bill Murray will be playing in his cameo?
Quote from: Ben on February 18, 2016, 09:10:31 AM
Anyone want to try and guess the character Bill Murray will be playing in his cameo?
I think it'd be great if he played the Mayor.
Last I heard, he plays a skeptic.
http://screencrush.com/ghostbusters-williams-slimer-confirmed/ (http://screencrush.com/ghostbusters-williams-slimer-confirmed/)
Apparently we're supposed to be getting the trailer today.
So far so good.
Eh, it looks okay. Which does alleviate some of the trepidation I had. That being said, the last bit with Leslie Jones was painfully stupid. I'm getting concerned with her character. If they are making her the "common person" type like Winston was so that they can explain stuff to her, I don't mind. But I hope she doesn't devolve into a Madea-like stereotype.
I am curious to know why they start the trailer mentioning the original. It make it seems like the events of the original happened in the timeline of this movie, which I don't think is the case.
Probably just a reference to the original movie itself.
The effects looked neat, though I see zero believable friendship/comradery/chemistry between the leads. The trailer is chock full of exposition via character dialogue that is spoken in a deadpan, disconnected way that makes me feel like the actor's don't know each other whatsoever. They all seem to be simply reciting from rote like it was an English Lit test they crammed for. I don't believe that the characters themselves believe what they are saying, let alone that they are friends in any capacity in real life OR this movie.
I hope I'm wrong.
I wasn't expecting it to look like a shot for shot remake of the original. Which is how the first half of the trailer sort of lays it out.
I'm more excited than I expected to be. I think I'll enjoy this.
Granted Paul Feig movies seem to have bad luck with trailers.
I did not like it at all. There was nothing that made even chuckle a little bit. Just doesn't look funny at all.
The gadgets and ghost designs look neat.
Quote from: The Lurker on March 03, 2016, 03:00:35 PM
The gadgets and ghost designs look neat.
I'm still iffy on the ghosts, but I agree the gadgets look cool in this.
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/12802741_1018447578194722_3206629503191769303_n.jpg?oh=cd8474af9fa448abec16325989448d94&oe=576A1E98)
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy86%2Ftedprior%2Fghostbustersscript.jpg&hash=cd793625cc61f7929973317374f594cb013abfff)
Quote from: MightyBombJack on March 03, 2016, 04:50:21 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/12802741_1018447578194722_3206629503191769303_n.jpg?oh=cd8474af9fa448abec16325989448d94&oe=576A1E98)
:highfive:
Quote from: Darth Geek on March 03, 2016, 04:46:05 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on March 03, 2016, 03:00:35 PM
The gadgets and ghost designs look neat.
I'm still iffy on the ghosts, but I agree the gadgets look cool in this.
I'm kinda glad they didn't mess too much with Slimer.
Quote from: The Lurker on March 03, 2016, 05:12:14 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on March 03, 2016, 04:46:05 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on March 03, 2016, 03:00:35 PM
The gadgets and ghost designs look neat.
I'm still iffy on the ghosts, but I agree the gadgets look cool in this.
I'm kinda glad they didn't mess too much with Slimer.
I'm actually surprised they showed Slimer in the trailer. It was only just recently it was revealed in an interview that he's in this at all, which was denied for a long time. And the plot description makes it seem like most of the ghosts are of human villains (pirates, gangsters, etc). I wonder how the more non-human looking ghosts fit into that.
Someone's gotta hock that Ecto-Cooler. :^)
The trailer was by-the-numbers and terrible, but I think there may be a decent movie underneath.
I find it really interesting to see how many people are seeing a trailer for the first time.
W
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on March 04, 2016, 03:31:21 PM
I find it really interesting to see how many people are seeing a trailer for the first time.
I see very few trailers myself. I don't do much TV (what few shows I do watch, I watch online), or go out to theaters a lot.
As a woman, I liked it because they are clearly going to make all those women KICK ASS! :highfive: My fucking niece needs shit like this. I need shit like this. Now we just need that Buffy movie....or an all female avengers. 1-2 token characters filtered throughout is not doing it.
Quote from: anais.butterfly on March 05, 2016, 06:10:20 AM
As a woman, I liked it because they are clearly going to make all those women KICK ASS! :highfive: My fucking niece needs shit like this. I need shit like this. Now we just need that Buffy movie....or an all female avengers. 1-2 token characters filtered throughout is not doing it.
It's a shame besides Black Widow the only strong action/genre female character I can think of is Hit-Girl which was ages before. The woman in Dredd possibly?
Well Captain Marvel is coming. And there's Agent Carter if you slip into the TV universe.
Also Rey because she's rad as fuck
Again...those are solo females in male dominated movies. Rey is the best of them because at least she is one of the main heroes (so was hermione) but I like the idea of an all or mostly female group of asskickers.
Quote from: anais.butterfly on March 05, 2016, 09:48:51 AM
Again...those are solo females in male dominated movies. Rey is the best of them because at least she is one of the main heroes (so was hermione) but I like the idea of an all or mostly female group of asskickers.
So...Angel's Revenge, then?
Aliens? Ripley? Newt?
Quote from: jonalame on March 05, 2016, 12:01:12 PM
Aliens? Ripley? Newt?
Still really rare.
Despite my snarky comment earlier, I do agree with Anais about the lack of female centric action movies. Probably Charlie's Angels would be the most relevant one I can think of.
Also, with how many merchandising tie-ins that The Avengers had, why didn't they do a Barbie tie-in and have Assassin Barbie?
Quote from: anais.butterfly on March 05, 2016, 06:10:20 AM
As a woman, I liked it because they are clearly going to make all those women KICK ASS! :highfive: My fucking niece needs shit like this. I need shit like this.
You are in for a HELL of a disappointment.
Quote from: Ben on March 05, 2016, 07:46:13 PM
Quote from: anais.butterfly on March 05, 2016, 06:10:20 AM
As a woman, I liked it because they are clearly going to make all those women KICK ASS! :highfive: My fucking niece needs shit like this. I need shit like this.
You are in for a HELL of a disappointment.
Did you see it already?
I smell time travel...
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi288.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll197%2Fdinosaurdracula%2Fezgif-3608762790_zpsjetkwvyn.gif&hash=d309637aaa41f26ce6eacaef4139f77f12e7cf48)
The Russian trailer for Ghostbusters is now online.
It's basicly the same as the U.S. trailer, except it's in Russian, of course, and replaces the Melissa McCarthy possession scenes with different footage.
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/03/08/russian-ghostbusters-trailer-offers-a-whole-lot-more-hemsworth/ (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/03/08/russian-ghostbusters-trailer-offers-a-whole-lot-more-hemsworth/)
Yeah, the Leslie Jones bit is a little less annoying.
Know what? All the nerd backlash out there on the book of faces is making me wanna dig my heels in even further. I will now refuse to be convinced that this movie will be bad. Not only that, but I'm gonna drag my Star-Wars-Episode-1-Lovin' stubbornness into this movie and come out thinking it's one of the best things I've ever seen. As long as it is possible to enjoy this movie, I shall enjoy it! Try an' stop me!
Quote from: The Lurker on March 09, 2016, 07:19:55 AM
I smell time travel...
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi288.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll197%2Fdinosaurdracula%2Fezgif-3608762790_zpsjetkwvyn.gif&hash=d309637aaa41f26ce6eacaef4139f77f12e7cf48)
Who will be the first to look to the right and say, "Cool! Boris Karloff in Snake Pool!" ;)
EDIT: Also, that shot also seeks to prove that Sony is ALL-POWERFUL! NOT EVEN TIME TRAVEL CAN ERASE THE NAME OF SONY FROM TIMES SQUARE!
Quote from: Pak-Man on March 09, 2016, 10:19:43 AM
Know what? All the nerd backlash out there on the book of faces is making me wanna dig my heels in even further. I will now refuse to be convinced that this movie will be bad. Not only that, but I'm gonna drag my Star-Wars-Episode-1-Lovin' stubbornness into this movie and come out thinking it's one of the best things I've ever seen. As long as it is possible to enjoy this movie, I shall enjoy it! Try an' stop me!
Which is ironically an even less mature reaction to this than their fanboy rage.
Yeah. Tongue is firmly in cheek, there. Seriously, if it's actually bad, I'll admit it. Don't feel like spending the next few months actively dreading it, though, and I'm genuinely really hard to disappoint movie-wise (You've all probably heard me step in with the, "Well it wasn't THAT bad" more than once), Might as well at least PLAN to have a good time. It's not like it's gonna be any different a movie if I get all mopey about it, and I firmly believe that attitude is half the journey. If you go into a movie having already decided you're not going to enjoy it, you're not going to enjoy it. Why do that to yourself?
I'm with you, I'm still cautiously optimistic. The Leslie Jones stuff is the only genuinely bad stuff in the trailer, and that isn't enough to judge a whole performance (especially since marketing has to choose the soundbitiest parts to put in the trailer anyway).
I will say I'm already in love with Kate McKinnon. She seems to be playing the Egon role, who was always my favorite, and she is the sexiest looking one (to me). Plus her hat joke was the best joke in the trailer.
While the look of the ghosts is a bit odd, I appreciate that they are very colorful. This could have had the dull gray look that a lot of blockbusters have nowadays.
MundaneMatt takes a look at the differences between the Ghostbusters international and domestic trailers. Apparently he still is not amused.
Hilarious reaction video to the Ghostbusters trailer:
I'm not sure what the deal is with the character he plays in these kinds of videos, it's not the same character he is when he does his movie reviews.
http://brokehorrorfan.com/post/140864580353/stern-pinball-has-announced-a-ghostbusters-pinball (http://brokehorrorfan.com/post/140864580353/stern-pinball-has-announced-a-ghostbusters-pinball)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdw7CwcWAAEZWB3.jpg)
Jack-Offula
First... lol at all this consternation over a friggin trailer.
Second... The only thing that made the first movie worth a shit was Bill Murray at the very apex of his Bill Murray powers.
The sequel sucked because Bill Murray was sidelined. This remake will suck because Bill Murray is like 70 years old and has no desire to fan service a bunch of 45 year old Ghostbuster fans.
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on March 18, 2016, 09:24:20 PM
First... lol at all this consternation over a friggin trailer.
Second... The only thing that made the first movie worth a shit was Bill Murray at the very apex of his Bill Murray powers.
The sequel sucked because Bill Murray was sidelined. This remake will suck because Bill Murray is like 70 years old and has no desire to fan service a bunch of 45 year old Ghostbuster fans.
You don't believe there has ever been any funny comedy except the few that happened while Murray was at his 'peak?'
I believe this reboot will suck... and yes... I believe you can't reboot Bill Murray classics.
I could be wrong... will readily admit that if and when this reboot is universally loved like the original.
At the moment, feeling smugly confident.
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on March 18, 2016, 09:45:45 PM
I believe this reboot will suck... and yes... I believe you can't reboot Bill Murray classics.
I could be wrong... will readily admit that if and when this reboot is universally loved like the original.
At the moment, feeling smugly confident.
You are making no sense. What Bill Murray property has previously been rebooted and failed?
I've got a boxed set of The Real Ghostbusters that says that the concept can be funny and engaging without Bill Murray.
I'm making no sense?
Let's review:
Me: First movie was only good because of Bill Murray, second movie sucked because Murray wasn't involved as much
You: Funny movies only exist when Murray is at his peak?
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on March 18, 2016, 09:45:45 PM
I believe this reboot will suck... and yes... I believe you can't reboot Bill Murray classics.
I could be wrong... will readily admit that if and when this reboot is universally loved like the original.
At the moment, feeling smugly confident.
So unless the movie has the nostalgia, charm and 2-3 actual jokes of a 30 year old movie you probably watched during your formative years it'll be a failure?
what part of "I could be wrong?" did you miss from my original post?
From your original post? All of it. It doesn't contain the words I, could, be or wrong in it.
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on March 18, 2016, 09:24:20 PM
First... lol at all this consternation over a friggin trailer.
Second... The only thing that made the first movie worth a shit was Bill Murray at the very apex of his Bill Murray powers.
The sequel sucked because Bill Murray was sidelined. This remake will suck because Bill Murray is like 70 years old and has no desire to fan service a bunch of 45 year old Ghostbuster fans.
it says that a movie that isn't the same script or characters of another film won't be funny because one specific man isn't in it.
Nonsense.
you got me
no doubt, this reboot will be gold!
That's no less idiotic than your original post.
I ain't telling you it will be great (though I have high hopes), just that it is absurd to dismiss a film on the grounds that the Bill Murray of the 80s isn't in it.
I like Bill Murray, but he was hardly my favorite part of Ghostbusters.
Yeah, a lot of why I liked Ghostbusters is because of the team dynamic, the interesting ghosts, and the horror elements. Looking back, Venkman had good lines, but he came across as a bit of a creep especially around Dana. The EPA plotline could have also used a bit more work.
In descending order of most influence on the original Ghostbusters: Aykroyd created the concept, then Ramis took up the slack of a dead John Belushi, then Reitman brought practical thinking to how such a movie could be made on a budget, then Moranis improvised his character in his charming way, then Weaver proved she could be funny and changed up her lines and demeanor with selfless commitment to a silly ghost movie, then Ernie Hudson was perfect as a level headed everyman, and then Murray who bullied himself into more airtime over Hudson.
There's actually several interesting videos out there by something called Midnight's Edge on Youtube that go through a number of things about the project, almost none of which sound good. While I wouldn't recommend the second video to everyone (it talks about a Reddit thread that may have spoiled the entire movie and goes through it in detail, and it sounds very legit), it does hit on several interesting developments, mostly involving a lot of the emails that came out of the Sony hack. Most notable:
- If the movie truly does stink, most of the blame goes to former Sony head Amy Pascal. From the sound of it, she truly hated Ivan Reitman, wanted him off the project as soon as possible, and pushed for the current reboot heavily.
-Paul Feig was originally not interested in directing, because he didn't want to mess with established continuity in franchises. Pascal assured him he could do whatever he wanted; if true, this is truly a reboot, where the original Ghostbusters never existed, so it's all new from here on out. That probably explains why it hits many of the same beats.
-If the original cast have cameos, it's under duress; reportedly, there were threats of lawsuits if the surviving cast didn't appear in the film.
-If that spoiler thread is real (which is looks like it is)...oy. Possibly triple oy.
-They make a point that most of the main cast have not done a lot to defend the movie or promote it...which may definitely be a bad sign.
Can't remember the names of the videos off the top of my head, but do a search on Ghostbusters and Midnight's Edge if you're interested (can post links later). But again, avoid the Part 2 video if you want to avoid spoilers. It does appear as if the video makers are fairly legitimate and back up what they can (and allow caveats where they can't), but worth watching, even if just to see what may have happened behind the scenes.
I've got no problem at all with it being a straight reboot and Paul Feig's got a great track record however he came to the project.
I find it very hard to believe someone can be sued for not appearing in a reboot of a franchise they used to appear in - what kind of ridiculous life-time contract could they have possibly signed? That's the thing that makes the whole story sound the most fake.
Also, Sigourney Weaver and Bill Murray were intimidated into being in this movie, but Rick Moranis was able to say no?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 19, 2016, 05:40:17 PM
Also, Sigourney Weaver and Bill Murray were intimidated into being in this movie, but Rick Moranis was able to say no?
I have difficulty believing anybody could intimidate Bill Murray.
Quote from: Darth Geek on April 19, 2016, 06:01:51 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 19, 2016, 05:40:17 PM
Also, Sigourney Weaver and Bill Murray were intimidated into being in this movie, but Rick Moranis was able to say no?
I have difficulty believing anybody could intimidate Bill Murray.
Exactly! In fact, isn't the reason we're getting this reboot partially that he has refused to participate in the sequel for many years?
Actually...I looked it up a little while ago, and the Murray legal attempt was at least a little true. While they never actually "sued," leaked emails suggested they were considering legal action if Bill Murray didn't get more engaged, according to a NY Daily News article. Whether this was to be involved with the new film, or because he kept pushing hard against appearing in a more direct sequel is a little up on the air. The fact that they didn't shows more they were scared the paying public would look at them as boogeymen attacking a beloved comedian...which is really sort of the case.
You can read it here, though considering it's the Daily News, your mileage may vary (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/sony-mulled-aggressive-action-murray-ghostbusters-article-1.2043556).
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 19, 2016, 06:08:33 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on April 19, 2016, 06:01:51 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 19, 2016, 05:40:17 PM
Also, Sigourney Weaver and Bill Murray were intimidated into being in this movie, but Rick Moranis was able to say no?
I have difficulty believing anybody could intimidate Bill Murray.
Exactly! In fact, isn't the reason we're getting this reboot partially that he has refused to participate in the sequel for many years?
Pretty much. I remember rumors of him shredding scripts that Dan Ackroyd had sent him.
I don't see on what grounds they could sue Murray though?
And it doesn't therefore connect that the current cameos are happening against anyone's will.
That may have been a bit of me reading into it more than it originally said. The "legal standing" thing could very well be that they were joking around and 'threatening' it because he was just being obstinate about appearing in the reboot. Of course, considering some of the questionable things that came out of the Sony email hacks (not just related to Ghostbusters), it could very well be that some of these execs have a tenuous grasp of how the law (and reality, probably) works.
I'm hoping for a good Ghostbusters. I like the actresses and I thought Bridesmaids was enjoyable (though I've never seen anything else by Feig). And hey, I'm very easy on movies...I was expecting to hate Batman v Superman and didn't, so this might all be hoopla over nothing. Mine is less a concern about the talent involved in the production and more how the behind the scenes drama will affect it. As of now, the trailer didn't wow me, but I still find all this stuff fascinating reading. Heck, it's almost worth the price of making the movie alone.
Check out Freaks and Geeks to see the genius of Paul Feig.
Spy is also really good. I wasn't quite as over the moon of it as most (the Coolio stuff belonged in a lesser film) but it's an excellent vehicle for McCarthy (and Jason Statham, who proves his comedy chops!)
https://twitter.com/Ectocooler (https://twitter.com/Ectocooler)
Uh...wow. Now I am REALLY worried!
Why?
If I watch a Rifftrax preview on the site, the lack of context always makes it seem unfunny - Then I watch the riff and love it.
I know not to judge anything from advertising.
Watch the original Ghostbusters trailer, it's awful
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/e3bf6fb9b8c87339e1b9e072ff600a23/tumblr_o6bfqaaUEa1r2yqlgo1_540.jpg)
That's a pretty half hearted McCarthy.
Apparently word has leaked that the recent test screenings they've done have been met with abhorrent reviews. Sony is panicking and the movie basically botches everything.
If it is bad, the thing that sucks most is that people will blame the cast.
Quote from: Henry88 on April 29, 2016, 11:20:44 AM
Apparently word has leaked that the recent test screenings they've done have been met with abhorrent reviews. Sony is panicking and the movie basically botches everything.
i
Source?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 29, 2016, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: Henry88 on April 29, 2016, 11:20:44 AM
Apparently word has leaked that the recent test screenings they've done have been met with abhorrent reviews. Sony is panicking and the movie basically botches everything.
i
Source?
just rumor ,otherwise i would put up a Source.
Like, you are starting it? Some dude told you on the street?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 29, 2016, 03:51:14 PM
Like, you are starting it? Some dude told you on the street?
other forum, i am trying to verify.
I know the trailer doesn't look funny, and there are a LOT of posts saying the same thing. Honestly, I never thought the original was hilarious...ranging from "meh" to "heh heh" on most of the jokes, but I was interested in the new one because...nostalgia. I "liked" the original Vacation and grew to love it after watching it so many times, but the new one was god-awful. My spidey sense is warning me to stay away, but then again...the first two "Suicide Squad" trailers looked terrible, but the third looks great.
Hmm, OK. Well googling turns up nothing. Is the forum on a fedora appreciation website?
Is anyone else puzzled by the "look" of the Ghostbusters trailer? Not the dialogue, or the effects, or the costumes, or the cast; the way the shots are presented. All of the lighting is ample and flat, focused in tight on the center of the screen. The blocking of the actors are usually in a straight line, left to right, with everyone able to turn and focus/pivot to and from whoever is speaking at the moment(This does come up in a few iconic scenes in the original, sure.) These types of visual choices tell us, the audience, that this movie is a comedy, that there is not much at stake. It will all pan out.
In contrast, the original Ghostbusters is often dark, with sparse/indirect lighting from overhead lamps or lampposts, or a flickering light emitting from off camera over the cast. The camera quickly whips from left to right, as if struggling to keep up with the Ecto-1 as it speeds off screen, always giving us some excitement and a good transition between scenes. The ghosts are treated as a genuine threat. Sure, the Ghostbusters are sort of joking about the peril they're in, but it is a heavy sort of joking, ripe with a dark, dry sarcasm. The Ghostbusters seem to just barely scrape by, keeping you rooting for them. Always the underdogs. This movie is shot like... a movie. A dramatic movie with a budget, with a director's clear vision. Like a "real movie". You know?
This trailer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw
They are only in a left to right line a few times, and almost all of those shots are really darkly lit (the one exception is when they are outside on the street)
Meanwhile, here's the trailer for the original Ghostbusters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vntAEVjPBzQ
Almost always left to right shots until the last part of the trailer.
First Impressions of the 'Ghostbusters' Reboot Have Leaked and They're Not Good
http://manslife.com/25752/ghostbusters-reboot-first-impressions-leak/
Quote from: Henry88 on April 30, 2016, 07:32:09 AM
First Impressions of the 'Ghostbusters' Reboot Have Leaked and They're Not Good
http://manslife.com/25752/ghostbusters-reboot-first-impressions-leak/
Hmm, Source is 'Man's Life'. Sounds legit.
Quote from: Variety of Cells on April 30, 2016, 08:29:03 AM
Quote from: Henry88 on April 30, 2016, 07:32:09 AM
First Impressions of the 'Ghostbusters' Reboot Have Leaked and They're Not Good
http://manslife.com/25752/ghostbusters-reboot-first-impressions-leak/
Hmm, Source is 'Man's Life'. Sounds legit.
QuoteMansLife.com is a digital men's interest publication with a focus on lifestyle topics, including dating, sex, travel, health, gear and accessories, as well as interviews and profiles. We created Man's Life to appeal to a man in a certain stage of his life, past the bewilderment of youth but not yet ready to get set in his ways. Man's Life target audience is men aged 35+, $110k+ income, 40:60 married:single, and US-based.
hahahaholy shit. :speechless:
i hit the darn lock button sorry about that,now regarding the link i posted i ask on the other forum i was on
where they got the info from and i posted it here without looking at it more closely again a thousand apologies.
No worries. MRAs have been trying desperately to hit back at all of these movies that dare to have women in them. It's unfortunate that when one of them doesn't do well, they are going to claim success.
Quote from: goflyblind on April 30, 2016, 08:50:48 AM
QuoteMansLife.com is a digital men's interest publication with a focus on lifestyle topics, including dating, sex, travel, health, gear and accessories, as well as interviews and profiles. We created Man's Life to appeal to a man in a certain stage of his life, past the bewilderment of youth but not yet ready to get set in his ways. Man's Life target audience is men aged 35+, $110k+ income, 40:60 married:single, and US-based.
hahahaholy shit. :speechless:
This is so creepy weird. Did you think they considered "white, heterosexual, douche" in their target audience listing or is it just implied.
https://twitter.com/Kathleen_McGee/status/729022187600928768
For comedy Ghostbusters has (maybe) 4 actual jokes
I just figured it out, Peter Venkman is a frumpy, desperate, pushy creeper who gets the girl. NO WONDER HE'S BELOVED BY MRAs, HE'S THEIR IDEAL
I just figured it out. The only thing I have in common with this community is Rifftrax and I should stop trying to fit in or post here. I had written up a side-by-side comparison of the blocking variations of the "four in a line" classic v. reboot, the lighting choices, the signature camera moves, the humor, etc. That doesn't matter though. It would accomplish nothing here besides gaining disdain from this community. Consider this my meltdown.
Quote from: jonalame on May 10, 2016, 09:47:53 AM
I just figured it out. The only thing I have in common with this community is Rifftrax and I should stop trying to fit in or post here. I had written up a side-by-side comparison of the blocking variations of the "four in a line" classic v. reboot, the lighting choices, the signature camera moves, the humor, etc. That doesn't matter though. It would accomplish nothing here besides gaining disdain from this community.
I honestly don't know what you mean by this.
I'm not saying Ghostbusters is bad, I love Ghostbusters. It's in my top 10 and maybe top 5 movies ever but it does rely on charm WAY more than it does jokes in my opinion
Quote from: jonalame on May 10, 2016, 09:47:53 AM
I just figured it out. The only thing I have in common with this community is Rifftrax and I should stop trying to fit in or post here. I had written up a side-by-side comparison of the blocking variations of the "four in a line" classic v. reboot, the lighting choices, the signature camera moves, the humor, etc. That doesn't matter though. It would accomplish nothing here besides gaining disdain from this community. Consider this my meltdown.
Let's remember you are talking about two movie trailers, one of which, given how different movie production is today is almost certainly limited in the finished scenes it had available due to it being in post production, and I still think you were wrong.
If that makes you want to quit the forum, I guess that's your business.
Quote from: jonalame on May 10, 2016, 09:47:53 AM
I just figured it out. The only thing I have in common with this community is Rifftrax and I should stop trying to fit in or post here. I had written up a side-by-side comparison of the blocking variations of the "four in a line" classic v. reboot, the lighting choices, the signature camera moves, the humor, etc. That doesn't matter though. It would accomplish nothing here besides gaining disdain from this community. Consider this my meltdown.
meh
If you have to tell us it's a meltdown, it's not a meltdown.
I wonder if the sudden decision to re-release the original to theaters is a reaction to the bad test screenings the reboot is getting. Sony trying to make money on the franchise and keep some good will in case the new one tanks.
I'm guessing it's to stoke the hype machine.
Since Sony cleaned up a 4K version for the 30th anniversary a couple years ago, it seems like a "why wouldn't we?" situation.
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 11, 2016, 08:41:22 AM
I wonder if the sudden decision to re-release the original to theaters is a reaction to the bad test screenings the reboot is getting. Sony trying to make money on the franchise and keep some good will in case the new one tanks.
Link to the bad test screenings news?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 11, 2016, 05:15:55 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 11, 2016, 08:41:22 AM
I wonder if the sudden decision to re-release the original to theaters is a reaction to the bad test screenings the reboot is getting. Sony trying to make money on the franchise and keep some good will in case the new one tanks.
Link to the bad test screenings news?
Someone on this thread mentioned them, and I've heard it mentioned on Twitter. So for all I know it's not true at all. But it's the announcement of the re-release that made me think the studio might be getting worried about tarnishing the brand now that they are trying to do a whole series of movies.
Yeah, the link here went to a creepy MRA website, so I'd take that with no salt at all and not take it. Henry88 who posted it even apologized for not checking it beforehand.
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 11, 2016, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 11, 2016, 05:15:55 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 11, 2016, 08:41:22 AM
I wonder if the sudden decision to re-release the original to theaters is a reaction to the bad test screenings the reboot is getting. Sony trying to make money on the franchise and keep some good will in case the new one tanks.
Link to the bad test screenings news?
Someone on this thread mentioned them, and I've heard it mentioned on Twitter. So for all I know it's not true at all. But it's the announcement of the re-release that made me think the studio might be getting worried about tarnishing the brand now that they are trying to do a whole series of movies.
Yeah, you might want to look back at this thread. A 'mens lifestyle' site that credited a deleted reddit thread.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 11, 2016, 07:25:20 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 11, 2016, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 11, 2016, 05:15:55 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 11, 2016, 08:41:22 AM
I wonder if the sudden decision to re-release the original to theaters is a reaction to the bad test screenings the reboot is getting. Sony trying to make money on the franchise and keep some good will in case the new one tanks.
Link to the bad test screenings news?
Someone on this thread mentioned them, and I've heard it mentioned on Twitter. So for all I know it's not true at all. But it's the announcement of the re-release that made me think the studio might be getting worried about tarnishing the brand now that they are trying to do a whole series of movies.
Yeah, you might want to look back at this thread. A 'mens lifestyle' site that credited a deleted reddit thread.
Was that the one from a few days ago? Yikes.
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 11, 2016, 08:05:30 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 11, 2016, 07:25:20 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 11, 2016, 07:18:11 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 11, 2016, 05:15:55 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 11, 2016, 08:41:22 AM
I wonder if the sudden decision to re-release the original to theaters is a reaction to the bad test screenings the reboot is getting. Sony trying to make money on the franchise and keep some good will in case the new one tanks.
Link to the bad test screenings news?
Someone on this thread mentioned them, and I've heard it mentioned on Twitter. So for all I know it's not true at all. But it's the announcement of the re-release that made me think the studio might be getting worried about tarnishing the brand now that they are trying to do a whole series of movies.
Yeah, you might want to look back at this thread. A 'mens lifestyle' site that credited a deleted reddit thread.
Was that the one from a few days ago? Yikes.
Yep.
Yeah, so basically it's pretty safe to say that showing the original film isn't some sort of "damage control" and more "let's get ready for the movie", which is pretty common (re: big marathons before Marvel movies, Jurassic Park in 3D, etc)
I hope that the case then. I'm still cautiously optimistic on this reboot.
So apparently James Rowlf (the Angry Video Game Nerd) has sparked a bit of controversy today:
I really don't blame him. He made a judgement based on the trailers, which is what they are for. It's just that this was so controversial already. And he knew he would be constantly be asked about it, that's the only reason he made the video.
I don't entirely agree with his basic philosophical problem with this new Ghostbusters (partially because I don't really think this new movie can do much more damage to the Ghostbusters franchise that Ghostbusters II didn't already do), but I do like that James is setting a good example for people upset about this movie existing and reminding them that nobody is forcing them to see it (and he thankfully avoids the misogynist man-baby stuff and mentions that Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts would be necessary as well for his ideal version of Ghostbuters III).
My viewpoint is twofold.
Part 1: Nobody has to see it.
Part 2: Nobody's opinion can be fully supported by facts until they have seen it.
You're certainly free to say, "I have a bad feeling about it." or "I don't think I'd like this take on the films. I think I'll pass." But you can't actually call it a disaster until you have witnessed every minute of said disaster with your own two eyes. A trailer isn't enough.
Sometimes seeing people's reactions to an unreleased movie is like feeding my son Lasagna for the first time. "How do you know you won't like it if you don't try it?"
Quote from: Pak-Man on May 17, 2016, 04:25:43 PM
My viewpoint is twofold.
Part 1: Nobody has to see it.
Part 2: Nobody's opinion can be fully supported by facts until they have seen it.
BUT WHO WILL STOP PAUL FEIG FROM BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE AND REPLACING MY COPY OF THE ORIGINAL MOVIE WITH TAMPONS AND INCLUSIVE COMPUTER GAMES?!?!?
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 17, 2016, 03:19:12 PM
So apparently James Rowlf (the Angry Video Game Nerd) has sparked a bit of controversy today:
Sometimes you just gotta take a stand and his stand is preserving the sanctity of a movie where Dan Ackroyd gets a blowjob from a ghost ...what a fucking idiot
Yeah, this still looks terrible.
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 18, 2016, 09:49:42 AM
Yeah, this still looks terrible.
Somewhat better than the last trailer though.
Nash raises a good point:
QuoteMy only concern about the new Ghostbusters trailer is they're doing that thing where each trailer shows more and more of the movie.
If they keep doing that, by the time the movie's released you'll have seen most pivotal scenes already. :/
Remember when Spider-Man 2 released so many promos someone put together 2/3 of the movie before it came out?
Don't do that, Ghostbusters.
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 17, 2016, 03:19:12 PM
So apparently James Rowlf (the Angry Video Game Nerd) has sparked a bit of controversy today:
I really don't blame him. He made a judgement based on the trailers, which is what they are for. It's just that this was so controversial already. And he knew he would be constantly be asked about it, that's the only reason he made the video.
My issue is that the AVGN didn't need to make it a full video.
Quote from: The Lurker on May 18, 2016, 10:50:47 AM
My issue is that the AVGN didn't need to make it a full video.
The only reason he did that was because he knew tons of his fans would keep asking him about it if he didn't review it.
Quote from: JimJ on May 18, 2016, 10:33:45 AM
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 17, 2016, 03:19:12 PM
So apparently James Rowlf (the Angry Video Game Nerd) has sparked a bit of controversy today:
I really don't blame him. He made a judgement based on the trailers, which is what they are for. It's just that this was so controversial already. And he knew he would be constantly be asked about it, that's the only reason he made the video.
Yeah, I saw that. Brad Jones is always very funny. And now I just want him to Snob that movie (yes, I'm pretty sure that is a thing that exists).
Quote from: The Lurker on May 18, 2016, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 18, 2016, 09:49:42 AM
Yeah, this still looks terrible.
Somewhat better than the last trailer though.
Nash raises a good point:
QuoteMy only concern about the new Ghostbusters trailer is they're doing that thing where each trailer shows more and more of the movie.
If they keep doing that, by the time the movie's released you'll have seen most pivotal scenes already. :/
Remember when Spider-Man 2 released so many promos someone put together 2/3 of the movie before it came out?
Don't do that, Ghostbusters.
Agreed on both counts. I think I'm done watching the trailers, since I already decided to try it anyway.
Well, I WAS cautiously optimistic about this, but now I think I'm going to wait to see what the reviews from people I trust are like.
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 18, 2016, 11:50:51 AM
Quote from: The Lurker on May 18, 2016, 10:50:47 AM
My issue is that the AVGN didn't need to make it a full video.
The only reason he did that was because he knew tons of his fans would keep asking him about it if he didn't review it.
Yes, but I don't think it was necessary to make a full 6 min video just to say he wasn't interested, when a tweet would have been fine.
Quote from: The Lurker on May 18, 2016, 01:38:07 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 18, 2016, 11:50:51 AM
Quote from: The Lurker on May 18, 2016, 10:50:47 AM
My issue is that the AVGN didn't need to make it a full video.
The only reason he did that was because he knew tons of his fans would keep asking him about it if he didn't review it.
Yes, but I don't think it was necessary to make a full 6 min video just to say he wasn't interested, when a tweet would have been fine.
I think he was just trying to answer the questions he knew his fans would ask. I'm sure he didn't anticipate the reaction would be as whipped up as it was. Patton Oswalt even commented about it. But he was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation.
I don't get his objection.
Full disclosure, I've never seen Angry Video Game Nerd's thing, so I don't know what he usually does, but as a respected critic, he should get that a remake is when you tell the same story a second time with new actors and modern sensibilities. A sequel/prequel is a movie that takes place in the same universe. A reboot takes all the concepts of the original and redoes it with new actors and probably a new plot, which is pretty clearly what this Ghostbusters is. He's talking like there's no connection at all to the original, but the trailers make it pretty clear that this is a regular ol' Hollywood reboot. Of course they couldn't get the whole cast together (Even though they totally got all possible cast members to show up).
Nobody can seem to come up with a really compelling reason to hate this as much as they do (Other than those who frustratingly admit that without a time machine and access to 1980's Harold, Bill, Dan, and Ernie, they don't think this shouldn't be attempted) . That's why, even though most critics say this isn't about gender, it seems to totally be about gender. If this reboot had been exactly the same, but starred- I dunno- Paul Rudd, Chris Pratt, Patton Oswalt, and Will Smith, would it be getting this much guff?
How lame is the "when I look it up there will be 2 of them now" complaint.
If 2 make these people nuts what do they do when someone asks them about their favorite Batman movie? Do their heads just explode? >:D
New trailer is awful. I can't believe how far they stretched to use the cliche crowd surfing gag for no reason. It seems like there is really nothing funny in the movie to show. And they gave away the climax. It's the ghost from the logo.
And what does everyone think is gonna happen if we see a bad Ghostbusters movie? We all saw Ghostbusters 2, right? Some of us even came to love it on its own merits.
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 18, 2016, 03:13:00 PM
How lame is the "when I look it up there will be 2 of them now" complaint.
If 2 make these people nuts what do they do when someone asks them about their favorite Batman movie? Do their heads just explode? >:D
Is that
really a complaint people are making? I wouldn't even stretch that far making fun of the sad, ridiculous tantrum people are having about this movie
Quote from: Quirk on May 18, 2016, 03:28:22 PM
New trailer is awful. I can't believe how far they stretched to use the cliche crowd surfing gag for no reason. It seems like there is really nothing funny in the movie to show. And they gave away the climax. It's the ghost from the logo.
Yeah, the crowd surfing bit with Leslie Jones was particularly cringe inducing. Just like her bit in the first trailer. She comes off like the worst kind of annoying shrill black stereotype. Was her character written for Madea?
In some ways, it's better than the first.
Quote from: Darth Geek on May 18, 2016, 04:07:27 PM
Quote from: Quirk on May 18, 2016, 03:28:22 PM
New trailer is awful. I can't believe how far they stretched to use the cliche crowd surfing gag for no reason. It seems like there is really nothing funny in the movie to show. And they gave away the climax. It's the ghost from the logo.
Yeah, the crowd surfing bit with Leslie Jones was particularly cringe inducing. Just like her bit in the first trailer. She comes off like the worst kind of annoying shrill black stereotype. Was her character written for Madea?
Actually it was written for Melissa MccArthy.
Quote from: RoninFox on May 18, 2016, 12:02:12 PM
Agreed on both counts. I think I'm done watching the trailers, since I already decided to try it anyway.
Exactly. I genuinely don't understand people who watch trailers of films they are already going to see.
Haha:
https://twitter.com/Atom_Murray/status/732594355324653568
https://twitter.com/untimelygamer/status/732713627371851776
Excellent comment I saw on Facebook:
QuoteRemember that time James refused to review an obvious Godzilla cash grab, or some crappy video game that tied into a movie?
Me either.
Instead, its exploiting the fan rage over the new Ghostbusters movie to turn YouTube views into cash.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 19, 2016, 12:20:21 AM
Excellent comment I saw on Facebook:
QuoteRemember that time James refused to review an obvious Godzilla cash grab, or some crappy video game that tied into a movie?
Me either.
Instead, its exploiting the fan rage over the new Ghostbusters movie to turn YouTube views into cash.
Pretty much. Exploiting the people angry about a movie they haven't seen for profit and traffic, I don't really have a problem with them being exploited but at least be honest about it.
Hasn't he reviewed Killer Klowns, no moral issues there?
There's also something I love about a guy sitting at a desk talking about how he refuses to see a movie he knows is going to be disapointing to him with a tiny little Star Trek V display sitting nearby.
Overall I like the AVGN's videos, but I think this is a dumb move.
I can't wait until this movie finally comes out so that the people who have already decided to hate it, can hate it, and all the people who already decided to like it, can like it.
After giving this a bit more thought, even if his stated reasons for boycotting the new Ghostbusters movie aren't misogynistic ones (and he may very well turn out to be right that it's not a good movie), I'm not sure that the AVGN and others would have such an religious fundamentalist-like reaction to it if the ghostbusters were all male. [Insert link to thinkpiece that articulates that idea better than I can right now.]
It is strange to me that this movie is the hill so many people are willing to die on when it comes to resisting the evil powers of reboot. I don't think everyone who is complaining is doing it for sexist reasons, but sexist reasons are making the more annoying trolls louder.
People saying "vote with your wallet, don't go if you think it's going to suck and it doesn't appeal to you" are absolutely right. When they follow that up by saying "this might turn out to be good, but I'm still not going to try it" it strikes me as dumb. A good review from a source you trust can't sway you? Then what can?
If it gets good reviews from people I trust then I will check it out. By that I mean mostly Midnight Reviews by Brad Jones and his friends.
I am a little concerned with other reviewers effected by all the vitriol against this movie causing a PIXELS like effect. Where it looks like a bad movie, and it is a bad movie, but the reviews are even worse because of the preset expectation.
This tweet is getting some pretty heated responses:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy86%2Ftedprior%2FNewBond.jpg&hash=a5ff293f6af08bb1066b1aba1575cfcfede93ea0)
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 19, 2016, 05:53:02 PM
This tweet is getting some pretty heated responses:
Quotehttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/tedprior/NewBond.jpg
Liked and followed
Patton Oswalt's Defense Of The New 'Ghostbusters' Movie Turns Ugly When Twitter Trolls Take Aim At His Deceased Wife
http://brobible.com/life/article/patton-oswalt-defends-ghostbusters-gets-skewered/2/
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 19, 2016, 07:49:54 PM
Patton Oswalt's Defense Of The New 'Ghostbusters' Movie Turns Ugly When Twitter Trolls Take Aim At His Deceased Wife
http://brobible.com/life/article/patton-oswalt-defends-ghostbusters-gets-skewered/2/
I guess they were worried some women might benefit financially if they had t-shirts made saying "we're unimaginably awful people'
Quote from: ScottotD on May 19, 2016, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 19, 2016, 07:49:54 PM
Patton Oswalt's Defense Of The New 'Ghostbusters' Movie Turns Ugly When Twitter Trolls Take Aim At His Deceased Wife
http://brobible.com/life/article/patton-oswalt-defends-ghostbusters-gets-skewered/2/
I guess they were worried some women might benefit financially if they had t-shirts made saying "we're unimaginably awful people'
We already have t-shirts like that. They say "Trump 2016".
Sadly, it doesn't really surprise me that some people would immediately go for the most low hanging offensive branch available as Patton's wife. But yet others are calling for James Rolfe to denounce them, as if he had anything to do with comments on a comment. It just never ends.
He might not be responsible, but I don't know why he wouldn't denounce them. I don't think he really has an obligation, but he can't really be ok with his fanbase saying stuff like that, surely? So why not tweet something?
Quote from: ScottotD on May 19, 2016, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 19, 2016, 07:49:54 PM
Patton Oswalt's Defense Of The New 'Ghostbusters' Movie Turns Ugly When Twitter Trolls Take Aim At His Deceased Wife
http://brobible.com/life/article/patton-oswalt-defends-ghostbusters-gets-skewered/2/
I guess they were worried some women might benefit financially if they had t-shirts made saying "we're unimaginably awful people'
But i would ask. Why is Patton Oswalt getting into a shit storm over a guy who dosen't want to see a movie. When his wife has only been dead for a month.
Quote from: Road_Element on May 20, 2016, 08:19:02 PM
Quote from: ScottotD on May 19, 2016, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 19, 2016, 07:49:54 PM
Patton Oswalt's Defense Of The New 'Ghostbusters' Movie Turns Ugly When Twitter Trolls Take Aim At His Deceased Wife
http://brobible.com/life/article/patton-oswalt-defends-ghostbusters-gets-skewered/2/
I guess they were worried some women might benefit financially if they had t-shirts made saying "we're unimaginably awful people'
But i would ask. Why is Patton Oswalt getting into a shit storm over a guy who dosen't want to see a movie. When his wife has only been dead for a month.
Gross.
Just so I don't ever make this mistake - How many days after your wife dies are you allowed to comment on popular culture on twitter?
Quote from: MightyBombJack on May 19, 2016, 01:26:17 PM
After giving this a bit more thought, even if his stated reasons for boycotting the new Ghostbusters movie aren't misogynistic ones (and he may very well turn out to be right that it's not a good movie), I'm not sure that the AVGN and others would have such an religious fundamentalist-like reaction to it if the ghostbusters were all male. [Insert link to thinkpiece that articulates that idea better than I can right now.]
Read an article that stated as such. This quote from it was interesting
Quote".... All this extraneous sexist nonsense means it has to be undeniably as funny as one of the most beloved comedies ever made. Or else. And the 'or else' here is serious business. Specifically, it means it will be even harder for women to anchor tentpole movies or head comedies... It's already an environment in which CBS reportedly declined to pick up a Nancy Drew because it 'skewed too female.' Where the concerns of a toy company changed the sex of a Marvel villain. And on and on. It's an impossible situation.'
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ghostbusters-mess-did-come-154501954.html
I have no doubt that if this new Ghostbusters turns out to be bad, as it looks like it will, it will have nothing to to with the gender of the cast.
It is an interesting thing to note, though, that while the cast is all female they don't seem to be overtly sexualized. The outfits are still unflattering jumpsuits. You would think if this was the kind of studio mandated executive type thing that they'd be in form fitting costumes with lots of cleavage and showing more skin. Ironically, if that were the case I wonder if some of the guys that are actually sexist would be complaining less about this movie.
http://www.avclub.com/article/ghostbusters-frozen-and-strange-entitlement-fan-cu-237139
SO GOOD.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 25, 2016, 07:31:01 PM
http://www.avclub.com/article/ghostbusters-frozen-and-strange-entitlement-fan-cu-237139
SO GOOD.
Sums it up so well "but... but... kids will think this is what Ghostbusters is!" uh huh, so what? just because it's got the same name as a thing you like doesn't mean you own it or it will always be targeted at you. Get over yourself
Yeah, shared that on Facebook as soon as I read it. Very well put.
Is this still an issue? Move on already!
Seems odd that the outrage over someone saying they are not going to watch a movie because they love the original is higher than the outrage over the idiot MRAs that want it boycotted because girls are ruining everything...
I could see poking fun at someone having a single above average comedy movie as their most treasured childhood memory, but that should only last a day or 2.
There seems to be a very dedicated group of people who always be sure to click the angry response whenever Ghostbusters is mentioned on Facebook.
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 26, 2016, 08:50:38 AM
Is this still an issue? Move on already!
Seems odd that the outrage over someone saying they are not going to watch a movie because they love the original is higher than the outrage over the idiot MRAs that want it boycotted because girls are ruining everything...
Yeah a lot of people are happy to cash in on the faux outrage train on a relatively benign 'I don't plan to watch this'. Today one of my facebook friends made 'a big brave post' about how they were still going to watch the new Ghostbusters, so take that haters! And I was like come on, no one on your facebook page was telling you not to go see it, stop feeding the stupid trolls and making them more important than they really are.
I don't think it's higher, and I think it's all part of the same issue.
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 26, 2016, 08:50:38 AM
Is this still an issue? Move on already!
Seems odd that the outrage over someone saying they are not going to watch a movie because they love the original is higher than the outrage over the idiot MRAs that want it boycotted because girls are ruining everything...
It's usually the same group
I suppose the video guy could be lying about Ghostbusters being his favorite and it's really an MRA agenda, but I haven't seen anyone calling him out for any previous MRA stuff. I think I've only seen a few of his reviews in the past so can't really judge for myself.
Maybe people who were teenagers after 1990 just don't have favorite childhood stuff? Has the radical drop in attention span killed that off? There seems to be a lot of people that don't understand not wanting to watch something that won't be fun and only make you wish it was something else. Calling that an entitlement is completely wrong.
At least this reboot doesn't use the same character names with new actors or blow up your favorite alien world, so it's not as egregious as some other reboots... >:D
Ghostbusters being his favourite movie doesn't enter into it though. It's not his. It's not even a niche thing, it's Ghostbusters.
The clown is judging a movie he hasn't seen, and making a six minute video saying he refuses to watch it. Did he do one for RoboCop? Total Recall? Point Break? No, just the one that stars women.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 26, 2016, 11:18:05 PM
Ghostbusters being his favourite movie doesn't enter into it though. It's not his. It's not even a niche thing, it's Ghostbusters.
The clown is judging a movie he hasn't seen, and making a six minute video saying he refuses to watch it. Did he do one for RoboCop? Total Recall? Point Break? No, just the one that stars women.
What do you mean by "it's not his"? Not a movie he loves? I thought that's what he was going on about at one point. If it is a movie he loves then how can it not enter into it? Has he ever said those 3 movies were movies he loved?
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 26, 2016, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 26, 2016, 11:18:05 PM
Ghostbusters being his favourite movie doesn't enter into it though. It's not his. It's not even a niche thing, it's Ghostbusters.
The clown is judging a movie he hasn't seen, and making a six minute video saying he refuses to watch it. Did he do one for RoboCop? Total Recall? Point Break? No, just the one that stars women.
What do you mean by "it's not his"? Not a movie he loves? I thought that's what he was going on about at one point. If it is a movie he loves then how can it not enter into it? Has he ever said those 3 movies were movies he loved?
It's not his in that he doesn't own it. It belongs to everyone.
The original Ghostbusters isn't going away! He will ALWAYS have the Ghostbusters he loves.
It doesn't have to be one of those three - look at his movie collection - a movie he loves has been rebooted at some point. In fact, I guarantee you he LOVES a movie that is a reboot.
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 26, 2016, 11:10:48 PM
Maybe people who were teenagers after 1990 just don't have favorite childhood stuff? Has the radical drop in attention span killed that off? There seems to be a lot of people that don't understand not wanting to watch something that won't be fun and only make you wish it was something else. Calling that an entitlement is completely wrong.
I don't understand your opening statement. Everyone has favourite childhood stuff I'm sure, I have a tonne of favourite childhood stuff. Ghostbusters is part of my favourite childhood stuff but I understand a new or sequel to Ghostbusters doesn't need my approval or even to be aimed at me at all, Ghostbusters doesn't owe me anything just because I'm a fan of it.
Did you read the article, Marty? I only ask because that is what it is all about - This sense of entitlement.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 26, 2016, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 26, 2016, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 26, 2016, 11:18:05 PM
Ghostbusters being his favourite movie doesn't enter into it though. It's not his. It's not even a niche thing, it's Ghostbusters.
The clown is judging a movie he hasn't seen, and making a six minute video saying he refuses to watch it. Did he do one for RoboCop? Total Recall? Point Break? No, just the one that stars women.
What do you mean by "it's not his"? Not a movie he loves? I thought that's what he was going on about at one point. If it is a movie he loves then how can it not enter into it? Has he ever said those 3 movies were movies he loved?
It's not his in that he doesn't own it. It belongs to everyone.
The original Ghostbusters isn't going away! He will ALWAYS have the Ghostbusters he loves.
So because he doesn't own it he can't say he won't watch it? How does ownership have anything to do with it? That's the part that makes zero sense to me.
I don't own Star Trek V so I can't say that I wish it didn't suck? I wish there were more good movies with the original cast, but I don't own the franchise, I guess I don't really feel that way....
Also it's not always about "ruining the original", it can be about not wanting to watch something that will get you wishing it was something else, if all you can think about while watching something is how it would have been great to have this made years ago with the original cast, that kind of ruins the fun.
Now if it's true he has gone to see reboots of other movies he holds as dear as Ghostbusters, then he's either a secret MRA or just bullshitting for extra publicity because the MRA stuff is out there.
I did read that article, I don't agree that wishing something was done differently equals entitlement. The MRA crap is entitlement, people demanding that things be done the way they want, but that's not the same as someone that is a huge fan of something not wanting to buy a new version of that thing.
I'm on my way home from work on Friday afternoon, do this will be brief, but no, that's not what I said.
There are multiple reasons he made an idiot of himself / one is the way he acts like he is the boss of Ghostbusters just because he saw it a few times. A different issue is he recorded a six minute video about how he wasn't going to watch it. It's not one because of the other.
On top of that, your opinion on that crummy Star Trek movie was formed by watching it.
I'll agree the guy made an idiot of himself, but the response to his doing that has been generalized to all fans of things. That's why I didn't like that article, it's pretty much saying people that complain about changes to something they are a huge fan of are acting under a sense of entitlement, for the majority of fans that isn't the case.
If you love the look of a certain model car, and the company redesigns it into something you no longer care for, is not buying the new one because of a feeling of entitlement? It's still a car that can do the same thing as your old car with the same name. If you don't buy it or even take it for a test drive do you have to keep silent about the reason why?
There was a lot of complaining and lame excuses in the video, but acting like he was the boss of Ghostbusters? I guess I missed that part....
cars cost a little more money than seeing a movie and have a massive impact on your day to day life.
::)
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 20, 2016, 08:41:25 PM
Just so I don't ever make this mistake - How many days after your wife dies are you allowed to comment on popular culture on twitter?
70. Common knowledge dude.
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 27, 2016, 01:57:11 PM
::)
You genuinely think those two things are equivalent?
And you make your decision to buy a car from looking at a photo of the rear view mirror and a hubcap, or whatever the equivalent of seeing a couple of minutes of out of context footage from a movie is? And then you think a six minute rant on why you won't be LOOOKING at that car would be a reasonable thing for someone in the line of reviewing cars to make?
Quote from: Imrahil on May 27, 2016, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 20, 2016, 08:41:25 PM
Just so I don't ever make this mistake - How many days after your wife dies are you allowed to comment on popular culture on twitter?
70. Common knowledge dude.
Thank you! I am glad to have this solved!
I will tweet Patton.
A new article to make people mad:
https://medium.com/@tonyszhou/the-trailers-for-ghostbusters-2016-and-the-art-of-editing-comedy-74a1433c3221#.ddmkn6dn3
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 27, 2016, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 27, 2016, 01:57:11 PM
::)
You genuinely think those two things are equivalent?
And you make your decision to buy a car from looking at a photo of the rear view mirror and a hubcap, or whatever the equivalent of seeing a couple of minutes of out of context footage from a movie is? And then you think a six minute rant on why you won't be LOOOKING at that car would be a reasonable thing for someone in the line of reviewing cars to make?
Not much point in continuing a discussion when the relevant aspects of an analogy are ignored and only the nonsalient one is picked out.
Also, you brought up that article and I was trying to respond to the more general issues raised in it but you keep going back to the 6 minute video. I already agreed that guy made an idiot of himself in that video, I'm not interested in talking about that any more.
There wasn't a relevant point to the analogy
So you believe that when a company changes the design on something all the people that complain about the new version are acting from a sense of entitlement?
Well sure they are. But the only thing that matters to the company is sales numbers. If they make a change to a product that is truly bad and/or maligned, the product won't sell. That's what sends the message to the company to change it.
If it's really a bad movie, word of mouth will get around, people won't see it, the movie will tank and that will be the end of that.
This is more akin to people complaining that an iPhone coming out in a few months is gonna have a new GX19-RAM chip (Totally made up chip for the point of analogy). They don't know how the new chip is gonna function, but they know that their old chip was just fine, and they don't like the looks of it!
Quote from: Pak-Man on May 28, 2016, 01:27:59 PM
This is more akin to people complaining that an iPhone coming out in a few months is gonna have a new GX19-RAM chip (Totally made up chip for the point of analogy). They don't know how the new chip is gonna function, but they know that their old chip was just fine, and they don't like the looks of it!
Maybe an OS change would be more like it, something that changes the look and "feel" of the phone.
But then again maybe not, I'm not sure there are people getting fanatical about an OS the same way they do over a certain car, movie, toy, etc... But maybe there are, Apple does have some rabid fans. ;D
And the new version doesn't have to be bad, just different from the version people are fanatical about, plenty of people will buy a new redesign of a car except the people that think it has changed too much. All it would take are pictures of the new design to turn off huge fans of the old one. If that's entitlement it's a pretty broad use of it, I'm sure there are some people that say that they have spent so much in the past that the company owes them something, but not the majority of people that are not happy about something that has been changed. I've spent a lot of money buying Star Trek stuff over the last 40 years, I don't think Paramount owes me anything, I don't like what they have done with the new timeline so will simply not watch those movies. Only a minority of people think the same way I do so the box office has kept those movies going, I hope someday more will be done in the original timeline but I don't feel I'm entitled to it.
The word entitlement just keeps getting more and more abused, but that's something for a different thread, I'm done here.
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 28, 2016, 10:49:44 AM
So you believe that when a company changes the design on something all the people that complain about the new version are acting from a sense of entitlement?
They only 'design change' that this guy actually knows about is that it stars women at this point.
I DON'T think you can put a blanket statement that all people that complain about anything are acting from entitlement, and that's partially why your analogy makes no sense.
https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/736428356036665344 (https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/736428356036665344)
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on May 28, 2016, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Pak-Man on May 28, 2016, 01:27:59 PM
This is more akin to people complaining that an iPhone coming out in a few months is gonna have a new GX19-RAM chip (Totally made up chip for the point of analogy). They don't know how the new chip is gonna function, but they know that their old chip was just fine, and they don't like the looks of it!
Maybe an OS change would be more like it, something that changes the look and "feel" of the phone.
But then again maybe not, I'm not sure there are people getting fanatical about an OS the same way they do over a certain car, movie, toy, etc... But maybe there are, Apple does have some rabid fans. ;D
And the new version doesn't have to be bad, just different from the version people are fanatical about, plenty of people will buy a new redesign of a car except the people that think it has changed too much. All it would take are pictures of the new design to turn off huge fans of the old one. If that's entitlement it's a pretty broad use of it, I'm sure there are some people that say that they have spent so much in the past that the company owes them something, but not the majority of people that are not happy about something that has been changed. I've spent a lot of money buying Star Trek stuff over the last 40 years, I don't think Paramount owes me anything, I don't like what they have done with the new timeline so will simply not watch those movies. Only a minority of people think the same way I do so the box office has kept those movies going, I hope someday more will be done in the original timeline but I don't feel I'm entitled to it.
The word entitlement just keeps getting more and more abused, but that's something for a different thread, I'm done here.
You've done nothing to demonstrate this isn't entitlement except to try to draw a flawed analogy. The article argues that it is pretty well, in my opinion.
Quote from: The Lurker on May 28, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/736428356036665344 (https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/736428356036665344)
OMG, their response to being called out on it: https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/736448493963911172
Well Dan Aykroyd seems to have enjoyed it.
https://twitter.com/dan_aykroyd/status/737083096252702721 (https://twitter.com/dan_aykroyd/status/737083096252702721)
Ugh, the reactions to that tweet.
"I heard you were going to get sued if you said anything bad about it"
::)
More on fan entitlement, springing from the previous article: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/30/fandom-is-broken
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 30, 2016, 09:02:53 PM
More on fan entitlement, springing from the previous article: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/30/fandom-is-broken
His best point is the treatment of art as a consumer product by the fans. That is what gives a lot of people the entitlement to demand changes. Those funding the production of art have been treating it as a product for a long long time, but it hasn't been until recently that the fans treat it that was as well.
Which is a shame, because it has slowed to a crawl the growth of video games as an art form and relegated them to entertainment. How can you expect outsiders to treat video games as art when the people who purchase and enjoy video games treat them like a product?
He also tied it to the Mass Effect outrage, which wasn't a connection I made and has always rubbed me the wrong way as a writer. When you create a story, that's YOUR creative vision. Creative vision should never be crowdsourced. Like- What if angry fans had railed against the ending to 2001 and forced Kubrick change it to something less confusing?
Used to be, if you didn't like how a story went, you quietly wrote some bad fan fiction about it, shared it with like-minded friends, and left the creator alone. Saying to a creator, "I know what's best for your creation more than you do" is supremely arrogant and probably wrong.
Quote from: Pak-Man on May 31, 2016, 07:43:03 AM
He also tied it to the Mass Effect outrage, which wasn't a connection I made and has always rubbed me the wrong way as a writer. When you create a story, that's YOUR creative vision. Creative vision should never be crowdsourced. Like- What if angry fans had railed against the ending to 2001 and forced Kubrick change it to something less confusing?
Used to be, if you didn't like how a story went, you quietly wrote some bad fan fiction about it, shared it with like-minded friends, and left the creator alone. Saying to a creator, "I know what's best for your creation more than you do" is supremely arrogant and probably wrong.
This is a little bit of a tangent that's only loosely tied, but my wife is a screenwriter and she keeps getting told that 'interactive media' is the way of the future. Choose-your-own-adventure esque videos where the viewer can influence the path of the story. This makes my wife mad to no end. She started writing because she enjoys crafting stories. But now instead of writing the best narrative thread she can imagine, she has to think of a bunch of mediocre options to appease a viewer that probably won't make the most interesting choices as far as a narrative goes.
She hasn't written any such thing yet, but is constantly reminded that's where the future is heading. And I think it stems from this sense of entitlement, that the consumer should be able to shape the story how they want, instead of just experiencing a piece of art. It's a dangerous expectation that is going to lead to a lot of mediocre experiences.
Not to say that form of content is always bad, it's been done in video games to various success for a while now. But that notion of 'the consumer is always right' is starting to seep into areas that perhaps it shouldn't.
Quote from: Pak-Man on May 31, 2016, 07:43:03 AM
Used to be, if you didn't like how a story went, you quietly wrote some bad fan fiction about it, shared it with like-minded friends, and left the creator alone. Saying to a creator, "I know what's best for your creation more than you do" is supremely arrogant and probably wrong.
And yet this is what those reviews of the prequels did--and everyone loved them. It's essentially what JJ Abrams did.
Quote from: Imrahil on May 31, 2016, 05:33:57 PM
Quote from: Pak-Man on May 31, 2016, 07:43:03 AM
Used to be, if you didn't like how a story went, you quietly wrote some bad fan fiction about it, shared it with like-minded friends, and left the creator alone. Saying to a creator, "I know what's best for your creation more than you do" is supremely arrogant and probably wrong.
And yet this is what those reviews of the prequels did--and everyone loved them. It's essentially what JJ Abrams did.
What do you mean?
Something whiny probably including a reference to lens flares
I *think* I understand the JJ part as meaning JJ he said "I know what's best for your creation more than you do" but that doesn't make sense, because he was the artist in this instance.
Assuming I got that part right, I don't know what the first part meant. Unless the post started sarcastic and turned sincere?
Like the reviews of the prequel were negative and people didn't like the films?
But no one here is saying creations are immune to criticism, just that you can't have criticism without having seen the product, nor should you campaign for it to be changed after the fact.
The "so I'm not allowed not to like something?!" response is so weird, yes you're allowed to not like whatever you like but you're not entitled to expect to like everything
I think Judd Apatow comes across as more than a little dickish here, and I'm someone who despises Trump and has no patience with manbabies complaining about the existence of the new Ghostbusters in a way they probably wouldn't if the Ghostbusters were all men:
Judd Apatow: 'Ghostbusters' Haters Are Probably Trump Supporters
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/06/02/judd-apatow-ghostbusters-haters-are-probably-trump-supporters/
QuoteI would assume there's a very large crossover...
Dunno, seems fair to me.
Quote from: MightyBombJack on June 02, 2016, 11:28:47 PM
Judd Apatow: 'Ghostbusters' Haters Are Probably Trump Supporters
MRA groups are largely pro-Trump so seems like a logical statement
I can understand the comparison when it was just people complaining because they were all women. But now that we have very unfunny trailers to actually gage the movie by. How accurate they are for the final film is debatable, but it is something.
1. Do you think when he's talking about 'haters' he means people who just didn't like the trailer? Or do you think he's talking about the harassers and the campaigners?
2. You got many examples of people who weren't acting anti this film before the trailer came out, who now are? (I'll give you a clue - you're not an example of such a person)
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 03, 2016, 05:11:57 PM
2. You got many examples of people who weren't acting anti this film before the trailer came out, who now are? (I'll give you a clue - you're not an example of such a person)
Well, me. You don't have to be sexist at this point to think this looks awful.
Supposedly the best of the trailers so far... International trailer #2
Quote from: Quirk on June 04, 2016, 08:14:48 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 03, 2016, 05:11:57 PM
2. You got many examples of people who weren't acting anti this film before the trailer came out, who now are? (I'll give you a clue - you're not an example of such a person)
Well, me. You don't have to be sexist at this point to think this looks awful.
I certainly didn't say you had to be sexist to think it looks awful. I think the troll brigade that are doing their best to take it down are sexist.
(Everyone else I just think is dumb for trying to judge a comedy based on a trailer)
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 04, 2016, 03:42:31 PM
(Everyone else I just think is dumb for trying to judge a comedy based on a trailer)
That's what a trailer is for. Granted comedies are often not well represented by just a few jokes. But why are people stupid for using material designed to generate interest in a movie, to determine if they're interested in it?
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 04, 2016, 05:29:21 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 04, 2016, 03:42:31 PM
(Everyone else I just think is dumb for trying to judge a comedy based on a trailer)
That's what a trailer is for. Granted comedies are often not well represented by just a few jokes. But why are people stupid for using material designed to generate interest in a movie, to determine if they're interested in it?
Trailers are for raising awareness for a product.
They are pretty poor for use as a source to determine if a comedy is funny or not, for the reasons outlined earlier.
Not to mention some scenes in trailers may not even be in the final film.
Quote from: The Lurker on June 04, 2016, 06:45:34 PM
Not to mention some scenes in trailers may not even be in the final film.
I hate it when that happens. But it would be a good thing if they got rid of that bit with Leslie Jones slapping McCarthy, and her stagediving, screaming like Madea, . That is just inexcusably bad.
The good news is apparently the movie, much like the original, has an element of horror, but you'd never know from the trailers.
The other good news is you don't need to watch it or even have an opinion, it can just exist and you can do other things
I've been insisting that this could still be a good movie. Could I be wrong? Well, I was hella wrong about last year's Fantastic Four. Still cleaning the egg off my face after that. :P
Much like Run DMC's contribution to the second, I doubt it's going to be the actual theme.
Well nobody can accuse this one of sounding like Huey Lewis and the News.
Quote from: The Lurker on June 23, 2016, 08:59:07 AM
Much like Run DMC's contribution to the second, I doubt it's going to be the actual theme.
This sounds like Huey Lewis and the News.
I stand corrected.
I can't believe you guys are still assuming this isn't going to be a good movie. How about you go see it just to support all female casts? How about you go see it, so your daughters and nieces can feel proud being a female from a super popular movie that ISN'T Frozen?
I just....you are all saying that the movie doesn't look funny....but you are all men! If open-minded men won't even watch it whether it is good or bad or will anything ever change?
Also, if the women cast were four Megan Fox-types, I bet the attitude toward this movie would be different.
I'm seeing it for sure, and I hope it's great.
Quote from: anais.butterfly on June 23, 2016, 11:02:17 AM
Also, if the women cast were four Megan Fox-types, I bet the attitude toward this movie would be different.
I agree on this point. In fact, I'm really surprised and impressed that they didn't just hire the women on their looks, and that they are still in the unflattering jumpsuits.
But the jokes in the trailer just are (mostly) not funny to me. Which has nothing to do with gender.
I'm seeing it, and I'm looking forward to hearing what my neice thinks. She and her brother were already big Ghostbusters fans.
I like Paul Fieg, I like the cast, I know trailers for comedies are tricky as hell and often alternate between failing to capture the tone of the film and spoiling all the parts you'll care about. In the end I'm just going in and hoping for the best. If it sucks, I'll have lost a couple hours and a few bucks. If it works I'm way ahead.
I probably will go see it. Unless the reviews are really bad from the people that I trust.
I think Kristin Wiig looks amazing in this movie. Really looking forward to seeing it. :)
Quote from: Russoguru on June 23, 2016, 12:31:52 PM
I think Kristin Wiig looks amazing in this movie. Really looking forward to seeing it. :)
Kate McKinnon looks sexy in it too. And if she's playing the Egon type character as I think she is, I'm going to have a confused boner.
I'm gonna be there opening night.
Even if this movie is a total bust, I can go to Toys R. Us and pick up a movie-accurate Egon figure for a decent price. Or a Hot Wheels Ecto-1. There are awesome blind-packaged mini-figurines that I intend to get all of. I can get Ecto-Cooler from the store. There's gonna be a new Ghostbusters cartoon that may or may not be awesome. It feels good to see the no-ghost symbol popping up all over the place. I'm a happy Ghostbusters fan already.
Full Soundtrack listing:
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/06/23/ghostbusters-busts-out-its-official-track-list/ (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/06/23/ghostbusters-busts-out-its-official-track-list/)
I wouldn't say the soundtrack appears as kick-ass as the one from Guardians of the Galaxy, but Debarge? Muddy Magnolias and the classic theme by Ray Parker jr? Pretty cool at least. :)
Was at Supanova today (Comicon-ish pop culture convention) and enjoyed the ridiculous rage of 3 separate groups of gamerbros in the Pop Vinyl stand over Ghostbusters figures while I was looking for a Robocop, 10th Doctor or Jack Burton figure. Surprisingly even though people in at least 2 of the groups noticed me laughing at them they were less inclined to call me a "cuck" or "beta" in real life as they seem to be on Twitter
Why is "supporting all female casts" even remotely a valid reason for seeing a movie? Movies aren't free.
I think it's a valid reason - Same as say, seeing a locally made film, or shopping at a local business. But it's not the reason I'm going - I'm going because I expect it to be good.
I just don't care. Make the movie good. I'm not seeing something like this as a "statement" because nobody gives a shit.
Sure, because you're from the single most represented demographic in cinema.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 26, 2016, 06:23:27 AM
Sure, because you're from the single most represented demographic in cinema.
I wouldn't say that. Grumpy people are tragically under-represented in cinema. :)
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 26, 2016, 06:23:27 AM
Sure, because you're from the single most represented demographic in cinema.
Who gives a shit? It's such a non issue. It's not like we're all being forced to go see movies.
Quote from: Imrahil on June 26, 2016, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 26, 2016, 06:23:27 AM
Sure, because you're from the single most represented demographic in cinema.
Who gives a shit? It's such a non issue. It's not like we're all being forced to go see movies.
It's a non issue to you.
I'm all for feminism where it matters. Equal rights under the law. Non invasive legislation. Equal pay for equal work.
But movies? Really? No, it's a non issue.
I don't know why you think representation doesn't matter, but again, it doesn't matter to you. It matters to plenty of other people, especially those that aren't the representation default.
But even from a non representation stand point, women are under paid in Hollywood, where they are also seen as less bankable and get less opportunities for work, even though, for example, Melissa McCarthy is one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood currently.
Ghostbusters being a huge success will help in that regard too.
What's important to bear in mind is that it's just a comedy about four friends catching ghosts. That's how I see it anyways.
Why does representation matter?
Because movies have a cultural impact. Art imitates life, then life imitates art. If life keeps imitating art wherein guys do the guy jobs and girls do the girl jobs, then the mentality remains set that there are guy jobs and girl jobs. Case in point- we are still in a cultural space where if a movie that is not extremely feminine dares to sport a leading cast of 4 females, a lot of people think it's a gimmick rather than a casting choice. Make the same movie with 4 guys and nobody bats an eye.
Does that mean this movie will be good? No. But it doesn't mean it'll be bad either, and that's where the battle lies.
Quote from: Imrahil on June 26, 2016, 06:13:48 PM
Why does representation matter?
Because too many people think it doesn't.
Quote from: RoninFox on June 27, 2016, 07:11:58 AM
Quote from: Imrahil on June 26, 2016, 06:13:48 PM
Why does representation matter?
Because too many people think it doesn't.
Don't you have two sons, too? If you had a little girl, what would you want her to watch. Who would you want to be her heroes. They just released a study that 'forcing' the Disney princess idea on little girls is not positive.
I am going to see this movie because I am going to enjoy seeing women kick-ass.
I will say that one of the more positive things about this being a straight up reboot is the fact that these women actually develop the ghostbusting technology from scratch themselves. As apposed to have it handed to them if this were a sequel.
Ghostbusters Box Office Projections Could Spell Loss
http://flicksided.com/2016/06/25/ghostbusters-box-office-projections-spell-loss/
just wait and see is all i can say.
Quote from: Henry88 on June 27, 2016, 10:37:18 AM
Ghostbusters Box Office Projections Could Spell Loss
http://flicksided.com/2016/06/25/ghostbusters-box-office-projections-spell-loss/
just wait and see is all i can say.
I don't know, this seems like the kind of movie that will at least break even in the US due to nostalgia, and then make a ton of money overseas.
It would also help if the reviews are pretty good.
The reviews will all be good because of female gamers, right?
Quote from: Kete on June 27, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
The reviews will all be good because of female gamers, right?
If we can't trust male gamers to be ethical journalists, who can we trust?
Quote from: anais.butterfly on June 27, 2016, 08:57:22 AM
Quote from: RoninFox on June 27, 2016, 07:11:58 AM
Quote from: Imrahil on June 26, 2016, 06:13:48 PM
Why does representation matter?
Because too many people think it doesn't.
Don't you have two sons, too? If you had a little girl, what would you want her to watch. Who would you want to be her heroes. They just released a study that 'forcing' the Disney princess idea on little girls is not positive.
I am going to see this movie because I am going to enjoy seeing women kick-ass.
I just don't think movies matter that much. My son was watching the Barbie dream house show a few months ago because he wanted to. I objected mostly because it was stupid, and the rest of it was that it was loud. But it was better than Chuck.
Point is, I don't think he has to watch shows that only feature young male humans in order to enjoy them. And not everything is aspirational. I don't think he wants to become a sentient train.
Movies are just fluff and aren't worth this kind of brigading.
For myself, movies(especially seeing them on the big screen) have in general always been important to me. I mean I can understand if it's not such a big deal to others, but there's this great buildup of anticipation, and you can really feel it when the atmosphere is thick with that anticipation. You feel like you're about to be part of something special. Now obviously you can't go expecting that of every movie for obvious reasons. However, I do feel like this is an attitude that will resonate with me for the rest of my life. Even if I don't like the movie, at least I will have had the experience that will stick with me for a lifetime.
Quote from: Imrahil on June 27, 2016, 08:11:41 PM
Quote from: anais.butterfly on June 27, 2016, 08:57:22 AM
Quote from: RoninFox on June 27, 2016, 07:11:58 AM
Quote from: Imrahil on June 26, 2016, 06:13:48 PM
Why does representation matter?
Because too many people think it doesn't.
Don't you have two sons, too? If you had a little girl, what would you want her to watch. Who would you want to be her heroes. They just released a study that 'forcing' the Disney princess idea on little girls is not positive.
I am going to see this movie because I am going to enjoy seeing women kick-ass.
I just don't think movies matter that much. My son was watching the Barbie dream house show a few months ago because he wanted to. I objected mostly because it was stupid, and the rest of it was that it was loud. But it was better than Chuck.
Point is, I don't think he has to watch shows that only feature young male humans in order to enjoy them. And not everything is aspirational. I don't think he wants to become a sentient train.
Movies are just fluff and aren't worth this kind of brigading.
No one said you have to be represented in a show to enjoy it. But when you are way UNDER represented in media, you notice.
http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/nov/12/media-representation-matters
Again, you keep saying it doesn't matter, you don't care etc - Good for you! It's really easy to not care about something that you are getting without trying. You don't get to tell the people on the losing end of the equation it doesn't matter though.
If you think women, POC etc don't want to be represented in media, you must surely be not listening.
Quote from: Henry88 on June 27, 2016, 10:37:18 AM
Ghostbusters Box Office Projections Could Spell Loss
http://flicksided.com/2016/06/25/ghostbusters-box-office-projections-spell-loss/
just wait and see is all i can say.
Interesting difference in the tone of the reporting:
http://www.themarysue.com/sony-ghostbusters-not-afraid-of-haters/
:)
Quote from: Imrahil on June 27, 2016, 08:11:41 PM
Movies are just fluff and aren't worth this kind of brigading.
I don't understand your logic here. So, a movie is story-telling. Latin and Greek literature (which I think is what you studied in university) is all story-telling. Story-telling is extremely important in all cultures. Where do you get your sense of identity and morals from (serious question)? I don't think you are extremely religious, but you care for and provide for your wife and children. You learned that doing that is a 'morally righteous and good thing for a man' to do....from somewhere.
I suppose the real missed connection goes more to whether a movie is story-telling (unless you disagree with the other premises). In that case, we can agree to differ, but, as Grug pointed out, since you are not part of the disenfranchised groups, your opinion in this matter isn't as important as other voices.
I think to me it just seems like a distraction to get worked up about movies when we should all really be way more concerned about representation in arenas that do matter--politics, business, etc. But perhaps it's just that I don't care about movies or go see them that's the real issue.
Representation in media has real effects on representation in other arenas though. It both shows the less represented it's possible, they are worthwhile etc, and also normalises the idea for the gatekeepers.
It's weird, but TV shows like Will and Grace and Modern Family helped make homosexuality more accepted.
Eh, better than Fallout Boy.
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 27, 2016, 12:30:40 PM
Quote from: Henry88 on June 27, 2016, 10:37:18 AM
Ghostbusters Box Office Projections Could Spell Loss
http://flicksided.com/2016/06/25/ghostbusters-box-office-projections-spell-loss/
just wait and see is all i can say.
I don't know, this seems like the kind of movie that will at least break even in the US due to nostalgia, and then make a ton of money overseas.
I don't think it does much overseas business... but I think overall the movie will come close to breaking even and might turn a modest profit. I don't think it's going to be a terrible movie... but the die was cast the minute it was a reboot and not a project blessed or produced or whatever by Ackroyd / Murray. And big time lol that they had to spend $150m or whatever... You better make damn sure the old school gen-x nerds who grew up with the originals in the 80s would be on board before you starting signing those kind of checks.
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on June 30, 2016, 06:38:30 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 27, 2016, 12:30:40 PM
Quote from: Henry88 on June 27, 2016, 10:37:18 AM
Ghostbusters Box Office Projections Could Spell Loss
http://flicksided.com/2016/06/25/ghostbusters-box-office-projections-spell-loss/
just wait and see is all i can say.
I don't know, this seems like the kind of movie that will at least break even in the US due to nostalgia, and then make a ton of money overseas.
I don't think it does much overseas business... but I think overall the movie will come close to breaking even and might turn a modest profit. I don't think it's going to be a terrible movie... but the die was cast the minute it was a reboot and not a project blessed or produced or whatever by Ackroyd / Murray. And big time lol that they had to spend $150m or whatever... You better make damn sure the old school gen-x nerds who grew up with the originals in the 80s would be on board before you starting signing those kind of checks.
Aykroyd is a producer, and Murray and Aykroyd have blessed it. They've both praised it.
I learned something new today.... didn't know that Ackroyd had a producer credit.
Yep, you definitely want the influence of the writer/director of 'Nothing But Trouble'
Any call for this to be anything other than a reboot should have died with Harold Ramis, there is no classic Ghostbusters without Egon.
Quote from: ScottotD on July 01, 2016, 12:36:06 AM
Yep, you definitely want the influence of the writer/director of 'Nothing But Trouble'
And if it were to be a continuation of the old films with a missing or replaced cast member, we'd also be in the wheelhouse of that all time classic "Blues Brothers 2000".
Quote from: RoninFox on July 01, 2016, 09:19:13 AM
Any call for this to be anything other than a reboot should have died with Harold Ramis, there is no classic Ghostbusters without Egon.
Agreed!
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/open-letter-from-ghostbusters-ii/
(I personally love Ghostbusters II for no really good reason, but the point stands.)
Quote from: Pak-Man on July 05, 2016, 02:37:17 PM
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/open-letter-from-ghostbusters-ii/
(I personally love Ghostbusters II for no really good reasonfor Peter MacNicol, but the point stands.)
Not sure if this fits your reasons, but I fixed it for mine.
Okay, Peter's not the only reason I love it, but it's a damn good reason.
As long as a ghost goes down on one of the Ghostbusters it'll be fine
I have a simpler approach: if it's funny overall, it's a good movie. That's all I am asking for.
Quote from: Russoguru on July 05, 2016, 06:05:52 PM
I have a simpler approach: if it's funny overall, it's a good movie. That's all I am asking for.
I honestly can't tell you if Ghostbusters is funny, I've shown it to people as an adult and results have been 50/50. I think it's the charm and special effects that carry it but for me it's 90% nostalgia
For me, it was the team dynamic they had going on and the atmosphere.
I'm in love with the whole concept. A group of scientists catch and contain ghosts as a service. There are so many ways you can go with that. Lots of stories that can be told. That's why I have high hopes for the new one. There's something I like woven into the very premise.
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/trailers/700441-female-slimer-ghostbusters
Now this is too far. We all know that women did not evolve to slime like men did. This is a flawed concept. Just more propaganda from the femi-nazis to enslave the men into thinking that their hotdog eating skills are not needed in society.
Quote from: Kete on July 06, 2016, 05:18:20 AM
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/trailers/700441-female-slimer-ghostbusters
Now this is too far. We all know that women did not evolve to slime like men did. This is a flawed concept. Just more propaganda from the femi-nazis to enslave the men into thinking that their hotdog eating skills are not needed in society.
Two things I took away from that article that I didn't realize before:
1.
QuoteIt's directed by Paul Feig from a script he co-wrote with Katie Dippold.
It's cowritten by a woman. That is encouraging.
2.
QuoteLeslie Jones' Patty Tolan, then, is the Ghostbusters team's everyman character who winds up playing an important role connected to an early supernatural encounter.
It seems Leslie Jones will be taking part of the Sigourney Weaver role from the original. Which at least gives her a little more reason to be there since in the trailers it looks like she just barges in and invites herself to be part of the group. It also means less likely for there to be a pointless love story in the movie.
Sounds like she's part Dana, part Winston
Cats and dogs living together? sounds like pusandry to me :gouge:
Quote from: The Lurker on July 06, 2016, 07:45:52 AM
Sounds like she's part Dana, part Winston
That's the indication, yes. I just hope her character is actually likable, because she comes across just awful in the trailers. Well, except for the gag of her walking away with the demon ghost thing on her shoulders, I liked that bit.
The key to Winston was Ernie Hudson's charisma. And that he was immediately accepted in the group as just one of the guys.
Looks like it's doing fine on Rotten Tomatoes.
Oh Reddit:
https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032 (https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032)
Quote from: The Lurker on July 10, 2016, 06:31:59 PM
Oh Reddit:
https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032 (https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032)
Hey, I follow her!
Oh, MRAs. You terrible human punchlines
Quote from: ScottotD on July 10, 2016, 06:43:00 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 10, 2016, 06:31:59 PM
Oh Reddit:
https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032 (https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032)
Hey, I follow her!
Oh, MRAs. You terrible human punchlines
"Apparently, this movie isn't terrible. That's terrible."
I never believed it was going to be a bad movie. Already got my ticket and looking forward to seeing it this Thursday.
I can understand why people would be skeptical, though.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 10, 2016, 07:00:28 PM
I can understand why people would be skeptical, though.
Cooties?
Or it's a reboot, which have pretty bad track records.
Quote from: Imrahil on July 10, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
Or it's a reboot, which have pretty bad track records.
Sure. Lots of good ones too though, and a good team attached to this one.
I'm just looking to have a really fun time. I honestly don't see anything about this movie that could potentially hurt Ghostbusters as a whole.
Quote from: Russoguru on July 10, 2016, 09:05:44 PM
I'm just looking to have a really fun time. I honestly don't see anything about this movie that could potentially hurt Ghostbusters as a whole.
It survived Ghostbusters 2.
Exactly, and I even liked that movie!
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 10, 2016, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: Russoguru on July 10, 2016, 09:05:44 PM
I'm just looking to have a really fun time. I honestly don't see anything about this movie that could potentially hurt Ghostbusters as a whole.
It survived Ghostbusters 2.
Vigo does have a MRA-ish vibe now that I think about it, of their online presence anyway ...Janosz is more like them in real life.
Quote from: ScottotD on July 10, 2016, 09:40:15 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 10, 2016, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: Russoguru on July 10, 2016, 09:05:44 PM
I'm just looking to have a really fun time. I honestly don't see anything about this movie that could potentially hurt Ghostbusters as a whole.
It survived Ghostbusters 2.
Vigo does have a MRA-ish vibe now that I think about it, of their online presence anyway ...Janosz is more like them in real life.
BTW, check out this great piece on Vigo actor Norbert Grupe. It's from a series called No Small Parts, that does biographies on character actors (It isn't relevent, but the Linda Hunt and Richard Kiel eps are also recommended)
Quote from: The Lurker on July 10, 2016, 06:31:59 PM
Oh Reddit:
https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032 (https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032)
A pretty perfect example of someone with a following deliberately digging through the trash to find some loser to publicise. A minute old, so she was waiting in /new for find something. The post was downvoted into the ground and you can see all the upvoted responses are calling the person out for trolling... but yeah "oh reddit"
https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/4s829p/ok_so_obviously_the_reviews_arent_as_bad_as_we/
Quote from: BathTub on July 10, 2016, 10:36:36 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 10, 2016, 06:31:59 PM
Oh Reddit:
https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032 (https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/752306791401132032)
A pretty perfect example of someone with a following deliberately digging through the trash to find some loser to publicise. A minute old, so she was waiting in /new for find something. The post was downvoted into the ground and you can see all the upvoted responses are calling the person out for trolling... but yeah "oh reddit"
https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/4s829p/ok_so_obviously_the_reviews_arent_as_bad_as_we/
...yeah, about that. Speaking of downvotes... ::)
https://twitter.com/SJWsnoke/status/752363161714511872
I *reeeeeeeeeeeeally* want this to happen though
https://twitter.com/BenKuchera/status/752424036697796608
'Ghostbusters' Review
'Ghostbusters' Review: A Winning Cast Saves An Underwhelming Reboot
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/07/10/ghostbusters-review-a-winning-cast-saves-an-underwhelming-reboot/#7d7e3b057870
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/07/10/ghostbusters-review-2
https://twitter.com/adamhopelies/status/752473708187508736 (https://twitter.com/adamhopelies/status/752473708187508736)
From what I've read, the movie was made with 3D in mind. Just a heads up.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnGrO_EUMAAwpjT?format=jpg&name=large)
When your level of 'not getting it' can be seem from space.
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-mit-physicists/ (http://www.wired.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-mit-physicists/)
Quote from: The Lurker on July 11, 2016, 07:11:00 AM
https://twitter.com/adamhopelies/status/752473708187508736 (https://twitter.com/adamhopelies/status/752473708187508736)
Holy shit.
It wasn't supposed to be like this. The time-honored tradition is: Remake gets announced. Most of public says, "I probably won't see it." I say, "I think it looks pretty good." and I see it and it's pretty good, and everyone rolls their eyes at me and says "Sure it is." and the world forgets while I buy it on Blu-ray. Why'd you have to make it weird, Internet?
Quote from: ScottotD on July 10, 2016, 11:16:47 PM
...yeah, about that. Speaking of downvotes... ::)
https://twitter.com/SJWsnoke/status/752363161714511872
That's perfect for IGN. Upvotes and Downvotes are irrelevant to YouTube, they all just count as 'interactions' which means their videos get rated higher in searches. So the ragebabies are benefiting IGN.
http://www.avclub.com/article/anti-ghostbusters-revolution-will-not-be-upvoted-239374
So their story literally is 'Here is an unpopular opinion!'
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 05:36:34 PM
So their story literally is 'Here is an unpopular opinion!'
You're being weirdly defensive of the anti-GB movement today.
The story is a round up of somethings happening to a big movie that is just coming out. It seems like a legit story for the AV Club to run.
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 05:36:34 PM
So their story literally is 'Here is an unpopular opinion!'
I saw it as "here's a bunch of hysterical morons!"
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 11, 2016, 06:42:33 PM
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 05:36:34 PM
So their story literally is 'Here is an unpopular opinion!'
You're being weirdly defensive of the anti-GB movement today.
The story is a round up of somethings happening to a big movie that is just coming out. It seems like a legit story for the AV Club to run.
When the media digs up an absolute nobody and says 'hey look at this!' then the media has created a story. It's absolutely shameless clickbait. Nothing about my attitude to that type of publicity has changed.
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 06:57:16 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 11, 2016, 06:42:33 PM
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 05:36:34 PM
So their story literally is 'Here is an unpopular opinion!'
You're being weirdly defensive of the anti-GB movement today.
The story is a round up of somethings happening to a big movie that is just coming out. It seems like a legit story for the AV Club to run.
When the media digs up an absolute nobody and says 'hey look at this!' then the media has created a story. It's absolutely shameless clickbait. Nothing about my attitude to that type of publicity has changed.
You think a record number of Youtube downvotes is publicity or created by nobody? or people attacking any semi-positive review? (https://twitter.com/SJWsnoke/status/752363161714511872)
I assume you're not on Reddit or Twitter?
Quote from: ScottotD on July 11, 2016, 07:12:58 PM
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 06:57:16 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 11, 2016, 06:42:33 PM
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 05:36:34 PM
So their story literally is 'Here is an unpopular opinion!'
You're being weirdly defensive of the anti-GB movement today.
The story is a round up of somethings happening to a big movie that is just coming out. It seems like a legit story for the AV Club to run.
When the media digs up an absolute nobody and says 'hey look at this!' then the media has created a story. It's absolutely shameless clickbait. Nothing about my attitude to that type of publicity has changed.
You think a record number of Youtube downvotes is publicity or created by nobody? or people attacking any semi-positive review? (https://twitter.com/SJWsnoke/status/752363161714511872)
I assume you're not on Reddit or Twitter?
Also the IMDB 1-voting.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 11, 2016, 06:42:33 PM
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 05:36:34 PM
So their story literally is 'Here is an unpopular opinion!'
You're being weirdly defensive of the anti-GB movement today.
The story is a round up of somethings happening to a big movie that is just coming out. It seems like a legit story for the AV Club to run.
It's also making the point that what they're finding is the anti-GB movement seems to be a small collection of very loud assholes. They're not blowing things out of proportion as much as trying to instil a sense of proportion.
Quote from: RoninFox on July 11, 2016, 07:24:46 PM
It's also making the point that what they're finding is the anti-GB movement seems to be a small collection of very loud assholes. They're not blowing things out of proportion as much as trying to instil a sense of proportion.
That's the point
I'm making. Why are people deliberate twisting what I just said!
Quote from: ScottotD on July 11, 2016, 07:12:58 PM
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 06:57:16 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 11, 2016, 06:42:33 PM
Quote from: BathTub on July 11, 2016, 05:36:34 PM
So their story literally is 'Here is an unpopular opinion!'
You're being weirdly defensive of the anti-GB movement today.
The story is a round up of somethings happening to a big movie that is just coming out. It seems like a legit story for the AV Club to run.
When the media digs up an absolute nobody and says 'hey look at this!' then the media has created a story. It's absolutely shameless clickbait. Nothing about my attitude to that type of publicity has changed.
You think a record number of Youtube downvotes is publicity or created by nobody?
I didn't say that at all, And
you literally just quoted me not saying that.
QuoteWhen the media digs up an absolute nobody
How can you so deliberately misinterpret that? Seriously? That's BS!
You're a commentator you live by your words, there's no way you don't know the difference between 'There's nobody on the ticket' and 'There a nobody on the ticket'
The trailer was 100% brigaded, but that doesn't require a lot of people, only a few scripts, but the morons doing the brigading are promoting the trailer, if downvotes were 'bad' that trailer wouldn't be the first thing you got when you searched for 'Ghostbusters Trailer' would it?
I'm on Reddit, that's how I could see that screenshot was misleading. It was a troll post, 1 minute old, and
already voted down in that minute. Posts start at 1 and in the few seconds it existed it had already been voted down.
It's easy enough to verify the guy was trolling, you just read his post history https://www.reddit.com/user/Better_Butter321 (https://www.reddit.com/user/Better_Butter321)
http://splitsider.com/2016/07/on-my-dad-harold-ramis-and-passing-the-ghostbusters-torch-to-a-new-generation-of-fans/ (http://splitsider.com/2016/07/on-my-dad-harold-ramis-and-passing-the-ghostbusters-torch-to-a-new-generation-of-fans/)
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/176679/ghostbusters-banned-china/
WTF?
Considering how heavily edited the undead in World of Warcraft had to even be sold in China, I'm not surprised.
Well it's a done-deal now. I'm taking off early on Friday and catching it in IMAX 3D after work. Color me excited.
I've got my tickets, and I fixed up my kid's proton packs.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 14, 2016, 09:19:01 AM
Considering how heavily edited the undead in World of Warcraft had to even be sold in China, I'm not surprised.
I had forgot about that, makes a little more sense (not really). I'm sure I've heard of Chinese ghost films? As a massive part of the overseas Box Office, that's going to sting.
Quote from: BathTub on July 14, 2016, 01:31:37 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 14, 2016, 09:19:01 AM
Considering how heavily edited the undead in World of Warcraft had to even be sold in China, I'm not surprised.
I had forgot about that, makes a little more sense (not really). I'm sure I've heard of Chinese ghost films? As a massive part of the overseas Box Office, that's going to sting.
Seems it's more of a political thing than cultural:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35008573
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on July 14, 2016, 01:50:15 PM
Quote from: BathTub on July 14, 2016, 01:31:37 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 14, 2016, 09:19:01 AM
Considering how heavily edited the undead in World of Warcraft had to even be sold in China, I'm not surprised.
I had forgot about that, makes a little more sense (not really). I'm sure I've heard of Chinese ghost films? As a massive part of the overseas Box Office, that's going to sting.
Seems it's more of a political thing than cultural:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35008573
That's kind of what I was thinking, so possibly the correct Official wasn't made happy.
Yikes!
http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/
That's the worst review I've seen of it so far. Most reviews from legit film sites have ranged from "Not bad" to "Pretty great." I ain't afraid.
Eh, one reviewer didn't enjoy children's movie isn't a headline for me.
Okay, I saw it and I really enjoyed it! I'm not kidding, and the audience seemed to enjoy it too! That's always a plus. No, it's not a great comedy, but it's funny, it's fun, it's got some great ghost-busting action and some cool horror elements and ghost effects. Overall, it's a pretty good time! I just hope the haters can someday set foot inside the cinema and have some fun watching this movie. I'd give it a solid 8/10. Even some of the bad jokes made me laugh, and I really felt like this new Ghostbusters cast felt like just as much a family as the original.
One thing is for sure: This movie made me laugh harder than a lot of other comedies I've seen.
Quote from: Russoguru on July 14, 2016, 09:48:41 PM
Okay, I saw it and I really enjoyed it! I'm not kidding, and the audience seemed to enjoy it too! That's always a plus. No, it's not a great comedy, but it's funny, it's fun, it's got some great ghost-busting action and some cool horror elements and ghost effects. Overall, it's a pretty good time! I just hope the haters can someday set foot inside the cinema and have some fun watching this movie. I'd give it a solid 8/10. Even some of the bad jokes made me laugh, and I really felt like this new Ghostbusters cast felt like just as much a family as the original.
One thing is for sure: This movie made me laugh harder than a lot of other comedies I've seen.
Agree whole-heartedly with pretty much every thing you said. It was a really fun time. I laughed a lot. There were plenty of jokes that didn't work for me, but far more hits than misses. I hope it does well, because I'd actually really like to see more of these characters, especially Hemsworth who is fucking hysterical in this.
I thought it was great. There were certainly some things I would change, but still plenty to like.
(https://scontent.fslc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13737625_10210229636003822_4202654598048297674_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9)
BUT HOW COULD TWO BOYS IDENTIFY WITH FEMALE CHARACTERS?!
Quote from: ScottotD on July 15, 2016, 12:42:55 AM
BUT HOW COULD TWO BOYS IDENTIFY WITH FEMALE CHARACTERS?!
Those actually used to be daughters. Look what female Ghostbusters has wrought!
Uggh, I had a feeling Ghostbusters was going to be contentious, but some of the accusations thrown about are just ridiculous.
I was fully content to wait for Redbox, but my youngest son really wanted to see this... and mom and older brother were off doing other things... so hey, why not?
I'll start by saying that the truly negative reviews screaming TRAINWRECK! are off the mark... but I found the sum of the parts to be somewhat middling. The final act is a chore to get through... as if CGI overload even holds much cache in straight laced action movies anymore... let alone a comedy.... but CGI overload we get. About the only comparison I will make to the original is that the Ghostbusters were amateurs... nothing remotely approaching badassery. But the final act here? Too much goofball straight up Arnie in Commando ghost wasting that seems to drag along with precious few laughs. Everything about the underlying plot and the villain is pretty lackluster as well... and I only found one of the callback cameos funny.
And that said, the first two acts offer plenty of chuckles... even if a lot of them are a bit low brow. While I thoroughly enjoyed Bridesmaids, it was little more than an Adam Sandler movie with all females in the lead... and this one sort of follows that template.... ectoplasm in the hoo-ha... not a gag from Grown Ups 3! But that template does allow many jokes that simply wouldn't fly or be met with eye rolls if delivered by men to at least still hit with some novelty here. As far as the casting, I'm starting to think that the final act was all greenscreen because Kate McKinnon ate all the actual scenery... but in the end this movie needed somebody to drop the funny... and she provided a huge chunk of the laughs from the primary cast. Wiig has chops, but you wouldn't know it here... as she is largely wasted as the straight man... McCarthy also came across as oddly flat... Jones gets a few laughs, but the AWWW HELL NO schtick might have left her short changed at the end of the day. Highlights from the support group include a shamelessly one note, yet hilarious, turn from Helmsworth and a great bit part from Cecily Strong.
If it wasn't for the decision that what a Ghostbusters movie needed was 20 additional minutes of FX battles, this would have been a pleasant surprise. As it stands... I guess it's no worse than Ghostbusters 2... two shoulder shrugs and half a 'meh' out of four. Big fans of Murray/Ackroyd/Ramis might find the plot lacking and the writing nowhere near as sharp... maybe a lean towards rental. Big fans of Bridesmaids / Spy would do well seeing this in the theater... Feig does nothing to surprise fans of those movies... but outside the overlong third act, doesn't do much to disappoint either.
Loved it! There was no way for it to surpass the original, but it stands on its own just fine!
Quote from: Pak-Man on July 15, 2016, 10:00:53 PM
Loved it! There was no way for it to surpass the original, but it stands on its own just fine!
I liked this quote I saw on Reddit: "On a scale from Ghostbusters to Ghostbusters II, I'd give it a solid Ghostbusters 1.5."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CneBXXEUIAAJ4M3.jpg)
Lives are being destroyed
Box Office: 'Ghostbusters' Tops Friday With $17.2 Million
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/07/16/box-office-ghostbusters-tops-friday-with-17-2-million/#6ef1da31799e
Box Office: 'Ghostbusters' Wins Friday But Ain't No Monster
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-ghostbusters-wins-friday-911348
well it is what it is.
Wait for MRAs to claim this as a victory.
The original didn't make a ton of money opening weekend, about 40% of it's budget, looks like this one will make about 30%. So it shouldn't be considered a disappointment yet, the next few weeks will tell.
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on July 16, 2016, 07:19:22 PM
The original didn't make a ton of money opening weekend, about 40% of it's budget, looks like this one will make about 30%. So it shouldn't be considered a disappointment yet, the next few weeks will tell.
BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WENT TO SEE THIS WERE BRIBED!
We were!? I better check the mail for my payment.
Quote from: Pak-Man on July 17, 2016, 12:50:29 AM
We were!? I better check the mail for my payment.
The idea of not sharing a space with MRAs is worth the ticket price alone?
$65,100,000
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostbusters2016.htm
I dare say that's pretty good.
I saw it yesterday and overall I thought it was okay. It had a good amount of jokes that worked, although still plenty that just didn't. Also several of the ones that didn't work were just interminable, going on and on for no reason. The downside to just letting your actors ad lib. I liked the characters. Leslie Jones was good. The two jokes from the trailer where she just shrieked like a racist stereotype seemed out of character when in the whole movie. Melissa McCarthy didn't have any fat jokes, which was a relief. Kate McKinnon was a bit hit and miss for me. I liked that she was putting so much energy into her role. But sometimes it just felt like she was more Harley Quinn than a Ghostbuster.
The jokes weren't dependant on the fact that they were women. So it wouldn't have been improved or changed in any way if the characters had been male. In fact the joke about the first proton pack test making a short limp beam seemed to be taken from a draft where they were male characters.
I like that the women weren't sexualized in any way. The jumpsuits weren't flattering or revealing. They didn't make any excuses to get the hot ones, Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon, in their underwear.
I really like Chris Hemsworth, and he can be funny. But here he was mostly just grating and his jokes were painfully bad.
Also, you have Chris Hemsworth in a Ghostbusters movie and you don't use the "Are you a God?" line on him? What the hell? Most of the other reused lines from the original were shoehorned in, it would have been in keeping.
The one thing that everyone seems to be able to agree with is that the villain was lame. They needed to have someone far more charismatic and interesting than that guy. The character seemed like it was written with Patton Oswalt in mind, and he would have done a much better job.
I liked the look of the ghosts in the movie better than I thought I would based on the trailer. The...logo ghost...is that what we're calling it? He had a rather lame look. And I don't get why he got a bow tie when he got big.
I did like the new tech. This helped the movie distinguish itself from the original a little bit. I just wish it didn't seem to come out of nowhere in the movie. The proton packs I can understand they've been developing for a long time, just like the original movies. But several times in the movie Holtzmann pulls new gadgets out of her ass, and we don't have any idea she had any time to work on them.
I'm glad I saw it, but I doubt I'll ever feel the need to watch it again. And if they can get better writers, I'm okay with this being a start to a larger Ghostbusters franchise.
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 18, 2016, 06:44:47 AM
The jokes weren't dependant on the fact that they were women. So it wouldn't have been improved or changed in any way if the characters had been male. In fact the joke about the first proton pack test making a short limp beam seemed to be taken from a draft where they were male characters.
Except all of the ones that were shots at MRAs and everything about Chris Helmsworth's character. Other than that, sure.
Quote from: anais.butterfly on July 18, 2016, 07:27:24 AM
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 18, 2016, 06:44:47 AM
The jokes weren't dependant on the fact that they were women. So it wouldn't have been improved or changed in any way if the characters had been male. In fact the joke about the first proton pack test making a short limp beam seemed to be taken from a draft where they were male characters.
Except all of the ones that were shots at MRAs and everything about Chris Helmsworth's character. Other than that, sure.
Well, now that you mention it, I do remember the one joke about the sexist comment on the Youtube clip. I liked that joke. And yes, there were jokes about Hemsworth being handsome, and Wiig being obsessed with him. Those were relatively minor, I felt, and didn't represent the whole movie.
On a side note, I did think that what happened to Bill Murray's character seemed very petty. I couldn't help but think it was a comment on him being the holdout for so many years which is why we never got a Ghostbusters 3.
I also appreciated the movie for actually having a little bit of heart and soul, and having a couple circumstances where there's a set-up and a pay off.
A funny intersection with one of my favourite game franchises, Rock Band!
https://www.destructoid.com/how-the-new-ghostbusters-movie-almost-possibly-delayed-rock-band-4-375322.phtml
As I saw someone else mention, they should do proton pack outfits!
That reminds me, the new version of the theme song in the movie was ungodly awful!
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 18, 2016, 05:15:33 PM
That reminds me, the new version of the theme song in the movie was ungodly awful!
Luckily it was kinda short.
They also had the old version, and that was enough for me. It's not much worse than Flip City or Spirit, at least. :^)
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 18, 2016, 05:15:33 PM
That reminds me, the new version of the theme song in the movie was ungodly awful!
Eh, at least it's not plagiarising another song
I'm glad the movie featured Debarge's "Rhythm of the night". ;D
I'll assume the "you can't say people opposed to the movie are sexist" crowd will finally STFU now?
Quote from: ScottotD on July 19, 2016, 01:16:24 AM
I'll assume the "you can't say people opposed to the movie are sexist" crowd will finally STFU now?
Still seeing that all over Facebook. Rikk Wolf posted a giant diatribe against the movie. Its all about how he feels that the movie itself is sexist because every man in it is an idiot or an asshole or both.
I thought about that, then thought back to the original movies. If there was a character in more than a single scene they pretty much fall into four groups. 1. Ghostbusters, 2. Close associates/clients/employees of the Ghostbusters. 3. Idiots, 4. Assholes.
The more I think about it, Peck was a jerk, but he wasn't wrong.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 19, 2016, 07:12:39 AM
The more I think about it, Peck was a jerk, but he wasn't wrong.
He overreacted to Venkman, but Venkman was pushing him hard. Peck's biggest mistake was not listening to Egon once he was finally face to face with him.
Venkman is a super creepy asshole
Quote from: RoninFox on July 19, 2016, 07:04:44 AM
Still seeing that all over Facebook. Rikk Wolf posted a giant diatribe against the movie. Its all about how he feels that the movie itself is sexist because every man in it is an idiot or an asshole or both.
You can easily play that game with the female characters in every other movie ever. Maybe not asshole, but sex slave is sure a common one.
Quote from: RoninFox on July 19, 2016, 07:04:44 AM
Quote from: ScottotD on July 19, 2016, 01:16:24 AM
I'll assume the "you can't say people opposed to the movie are sexist" crowd will finally STFU now?
I thought about that, then thought back to the original movies. If there was a character in more than a single scene they pretty much fall into four groups. 1. Ghostbusters, 2. Close associates/clients/employees of the Ghostbusters. 3. Idiots, 4. Assholes.
I guess it's up to me....
I knew it! They were surrounded by Assholes!
Quote from: RoninFox on July 19, 2016, 07:14:15 AM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 19, 2016, 07:12:39 AM
The more I think about it, Peck was a jerk, but he wasn't wrong.
He overreacted to Venkman, but Venkman was pushing him hard. Peck's biggest mistake was not listening to Egon once he was finally face to face with him.
True, but I mean more that Peck has a right to be concerned.
You don't find many cherished movies that paint the EPA as bad guys/jerks...
https://twitter.com/robbiereviews/status/755322934869262336
Meanwhile, at the "He-Man Woman Ghostbuster Haters Club"...
Member 1: Well, our plan is not working out the way we want. People are going out to see the movie.
Member 2: Yes, we need a new plan to show the world our hate of the film, STAT!!!!
Member 3: Well, instead of making posts about the film, why don't we aim for a different target?
Member 4: Well, we can do a hate campaign, like what we did with Leslie Jones earlier this year, but this time amp it up a few notches.
Member 5: Yes, let's do that. Let's make vile and racist tweets against Leslie Jones and fake some tweets making it look like they came from her. We can't fail!
(They all then go "Bwah-hah-hah", twiddles their mustaches, and rubs their hands together evilly)
Then this happened: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2119638-racist-tweets-force-leslie-jones-to-quit-twitter/ (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2119638-racist-tweets-force-leslie-jones-to-quit-twitter/)
Quote from: Toplar Scarre on July 19, 2016, 05:23:21 PM
Meanwhile, at the "He-Man Woman Ghostbuster Haters Club"...
Member 1: Well, our plan is not working out the way we want. People are going out to see the movie.
Member 2: Yes, we need a new plan to show the world our hate of the film, STAT!!!!
Member 3: Well, instead of making posts about the film, why don't we aim for a different target?
Member 4: Well, we can do a hate campaign, like what we did with Leslie Jones earlier this year, but this time amp it up a few notches.
Member 5: Yes, let's do that. Let's make vile and racist tweets against Leslie Jones and fake some tweets making it look like they came from her. We can't fail!
(They all then go "Bwah-hah-hah", twiddles their mustaches, and rubs their hands together evilly)
Then this happened: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2119638-racist-tweets-force-leslie-jones-to-quit-twitter/ (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2119638-racist-tweets-force-leslie-jones-to-quit-twitter/)
There's no way we won't come out of this looking like returning kings and not entitled, bigoted babies full of impotent rage.
Nero just got permanently banned from Twitter. (Finally)
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 19, 2016, 07:29:48 PM
Nero just got permanently banned from Twitter. (Finally)
Is that the orange, bleach blonde guy who looks like a shitty, smug elf?
Quote from: ScottotD on July 19, 2016, 07:34:32 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 19, 2016, 07:29:48 PM
Nero just got permanently banned from Twitter. (Finally)
Is that the orange, bleach blonde guy who looks like a shitty, smug elf?
Yeah, he lead the harassment campaign against Leslie Jones yesterday.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 19, 2016, 07:12:39 AM
The more I think about it, Peck was a jerk, but he wasn't wrong.
Yes he was. He was using his position at the EPA to take down the Ghostbusters because he was a skeptic and didn't believe in ghosts. That's why he used the excuse of the chemical leaks when he went to the Ghostbusters, but told the Mayor that they were using tricks to fool people into thinking they were seeing ghosts.
What little destruction we saw the Ghostbusters do because of their equipment was A) just for comedic effect, B) only early on when they were first using the equipment, and C) NOT THE CONTAINMENT UNIT!
Permanent bans rarely ever seem to be.
Quote from: BathTub on July 19, 2016, 10:18:09 PM
Permanent bans rarely ever seem to be.
I don't know that I've ever seen a perma-ban on twitter before.
Finally got to see the movie last night. Loved it, so did Erica.
It is a lot more joke-focussed than the original, which helped me not to compare them as much. I liked the design of the ghosts more than I thought I would, and I liked that they seemed threatening throughout the movie. The cameos were probably unnecessary, but hell with it, I enjoyed them.
I've seen some claiming that they could tell that Bill Murray was miserable and hating every moment of being in the movie. I think that's ridiculous. First of all, I don't think Bill would give a shit about any "threat" the studio would make, the man just does whatever the hell he wants. It seemed like he was relishing the character to me.
I'm sure I have a lot more to say, but its early now and I'll just space it out.
Did anyone else notice the satirical aspect of what Bill Murray's character represents? I mean, right before they interview him (the first (and most important) cameo) the show's narrator says something like with the blessing of this character, the ghostbusters would be legit.
I mean....seriously? BRILLIANT. Fucking Brilliant!
Quote from: anais.butterfly on July 21, 2016, 06:20:49 AM
Did anyone else notice the satirical aspect of what Bill Murray's character represents? I mean, right before they interview him (the first (and most important) cameo) the show's narrator says something like with the blessing of this character, the ghostbusters would be legit.
I mean....seriously? BRILLIANT. Fucking Brilliant!
Absolutely. Also he kind of got a wish out of it.
He's been joking for years that the way they'd get him into another Ghostbusters movie would be to kill him.
Quote from: RoninFox on July 21, 2016, 07:15:08 AM
Quote from: anais.butterfly on July 21, 2016, 06:20:49 AM
Did anyone else notice the satirical aspect of what Bill Murray's character represents? I mean, right before they interview him (the first (and most important) cameo) the show's narrator says something like with the blessing of this character, the ghostbusters would be legit.
I mean....seriously? BRILLIANT. Fucking Brilliant!
Absolutely. Also he kind of got a wish out of it.
He's been joking for years that the way they'd get him into another Ghostbusters movie would be to kill him.
It would be funny if he came back as a ghost in the sequel.
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 21, 2016, 07:45:18 AM
Quote from: RoninFox on July 21, 2016, 07:15:08 AM
Quote from: anais.butterfly on July 21, 2016, 06:20:49 AM
Did anyone else notice the satirical aspect of what Bill Murray's character represents? I mean, right before they interview him (the first (and most important) cameo) the show's narrator says something like with the blessing of this character, the ghostbusters would be legit.
I mean....seriously? BRILLIANT. Fucking Brilliant!
Absolutely. Also he kind of got a wish out of it.
He's been joking for years that the way they'd get him into another Ghostbusters movie would be to kill him.
It would be funny if he came back as a ghost in the sequel.
Still as a skeptic, not believing he's dead.
Quote from: RoninFox on July 21, 2016, 08:24:07 AM
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 21, 2016, 07:45:18 AM
Quote from: RoninFox on July 21, 2016, 07:15:08 AM
Quote from: anais.butterfly on July 21, 2016, 06:20:49 AM
Did anyone else notice the satirical aspect of what Bill Murray's character represents? I mean, right before they interview him (the first (and most important) cameo) the show's narrator says something like with the blessing of this character, the ghostbusters would be legit.
I mean....seriously? BRILLIANT. Fucking Brilliant!
Absolutely. Also he kind of got a wish out of it.
He's been joking for years that the way they'd get him into another Ghostbusters movie would be to kill him.
It would be funny if he came back as a ghost in the sequel.
Still as a skeptic, not believing he's dead.
:clap: :clap: That would be brilliant!
After everything i've seen and heard.... not sure i want to see a sequel. :(
I'd like a sequel, but if it means they're gonna use Aykroyd's Ghostbusters in Ireland idea, ehhhhh...
Quote from: Russoguru on July 21, 2016, 04:29:07 PM
After everything i've seen and heard.... not sure i want to see a sequel. :(
Why not?
Quote from: The Lurker on July 21, 2016, 04:45:50 PM
I'd like a sequel, but if it means they're gonna use Aykroyd's Ghostbusters in Ireland idea, ehhhhh...
What is that?
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 21, 2016, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 21, 2016, 04:45:50 PM
I'd like a sequel, but if it means they're gonna use Aykroyd's Ghostbusters in Ireland idea, ehhhhh...
What is that?
Supposedly, one of Dan Aykroyd's ideas for a Ghostbusters film (possibly Ghostbusters 2) originally involved saving Dana from leprechauns in Ireland.
That's not on the table though, is it?
All I've heard about the new movie's sequel is that they may be using a different location
Based on the post-credit sequence, I thought the sequel would be about Zuul/Gozor.
Quote from: anais.butterfly on July 22, 2016, 07:09:41 AM
Based on the post-credit sequence, I thought the sequel would be about Zuul/Gozor.
I think so too.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 21, 2016, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 21, 2016, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 21, 2016, 04:45:50 PM
I'd like a sequel, but if it means they're gonna use Aykroyd's Ghostbusters in Ireland idea, ehhhhh...
What is that?
Supposedly, one of Dan Aykroyd's ideas for a Ghostbusters film (possibly Ghostbusters 2) originally involved saving Dana from leprechauns in Ireland.
Involving leprechauns seems a bit silly. But I just really don't like the idea of having to, yet again, save Dana.
'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515)
Confronted by tepid box office for the reboot, the studio will instead focus on animated spinoffs.
Quote from: Henry88 on August 11, 2016, 07:26:27 AM
'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515)
Confronted by tepid box office for the reboot, the studio will instead focus on animated spinoffs.
That's a shame. While I thought the movie was rather meh, it was strictly because of the bad writing. I liked the characters (even Leslie Jones, who I thought I wouldn't based on the trailer).
The worst part is the meninists and other pointless haters that will treat this as a victory.
Yup. Great job, Ghostbusters fans! You killed Ghostbusters. Maybe we'll get to try again in another 20 years.
Another perspective... (http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/ghostbusters-remake-now-officially-not-a-flop-8622080)
Also... (http://www.businessinsider.com/ghostbusters-sequel-will-happen-2016-7)
Reverting to cautious optimism mode. I really want to see more of these Ghostbusters.
Heck, give me a Ghostbusters cinematic universe with different teams all over the world busting ghosts.
Quote from: Pak-Man on August 11, 2016, 11:10:11 AM
Heck, give me a Ghostbusters cinematic universe with different teams all over the world busting ghosts.
I was under the impression that was the plan. That's why they talked about an MCU style "shared universe" of movies. That's why they formed the Ghost CORPS production wing of Columbia Pictures.
Does home video no longer earn enough in the big picture to influence sequel prospects?
Quote from: Darth Geek on August 11, 2016, 10:13:26 AM
Quote from: Henry88 on August 11, 2016, 07:26:27 AM
'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515)
Confronted by tepid box office for the reboot, the studio will instead focus on animated spinoffs.
That's a shame. While I thought the movie was rather meh, it was strictly because of the bad writing. I liked the characters (even Leslie Jones, who I thought I wouldn't based on the trailer).
The worst part is the meninists and other pointless haters that will treat this as a victory.
Why are you blaming the Amish for this?
and how do you lose $70m?
$181,614,009
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostbusters2016.htm
Quote from: Darth Geek on August 11, 2016, 10:13:26 AM
Quote from: Henry88 on August 11, 2016, 07:26:27 AM
'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515)
Confronted by tepid box office for the reboot, the studio will instead focus on animated spinoffs.
That's a shame. While I thought the movie was rather meh, it was strictly because of the bad writing. I liked the characters (even Leslie Jones, who I thought I wouldn't based on the trailer).
The worst part is the meninists and other pointless haters that will treat this as a victory.
Well... why shouldn't they? I don't mean that as some crazy MRA defense.... but seriously.... it was a rather poorly executed movie. How many male comedians get a break for *lol* bad writing?
What would their victory be?
And let's see, Grown Ups 2, Joe Dirt 2, Evan Almighty, Home Alone 4, Men in Black 3, The Santa Clause 3, American Pie 1000000, The Hangover part 3, Scary Movie whatever, Nutty Professor 2... How many do you need?
Sorry for necropost.
I never caught this movie in the theaters, but I did grab the DVD out of a Redbox about 6 months ago. It was an okay movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible. I hate Leslie Jones (not personally, I just think she's a bad actress), but she was not front and center in the movie so I could deal with it. Kristin Wiig is always a delight, and I like Kate McKinnon too although not as consistently as Kristen Wiig.
I hated that there was so much needless controversy over this movie. Like its existence somehow sullies the original movie from the 1980s. I mean, that movie still exists. If you want to enjoy it, enjoy it and avoid this one. I do wish they'd given this one a different title though, to make things less confusing.
One of the dumbest things I saw regarding this movie was when Angry Video Game Nerd put out a video saying he wouldn't review the movie. I don't think THAT is particularly dumb, but afterwards, a bunch of videos popped up defending him against some sort of backlash. Except I saw virtually no backlash, and I looked really hard for one. There were easily at least twice as many people defending him as there were people attacking him as a sexist. I think the only time I ever saw anyone call AVGN a sexist was in screenshots added to the defenders' videos. Social media is such a stupid place.
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on September 15, 2017, 06:50:11 AM
Sorry for necropost.
I never caught this movie in the theaters, but I did grab the DVD out of a Redbox about 6 months ago. It was an okay movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible. I hate Leslie Jones (not personally, I just think she's a bad actress), but she was not front and center in the movie so I could deal with it. Kristin Wiig is always a delight, and I like Kate McKinnon too although not as consistently as Kristen Wiig.
I hated that there was so much needless controversy over this movie. Like its existence somehow sullies the original movie from the 1980s. I mean, that movie still exists. If you want to enjoy it, enjoy it and avoid this one. I do wish they'd given this one a different title though, to make things less confusing.
One of the dumbest things I saw regarding this movie was when Angry Video Game Nerd put out a video saying he wouldn't review the movie. I don't think THAT is particularly dumb, but afterwards, a bunch of videos popped up defending him against some sort of backlash. Except I saw virtually no backlash, and I looked really hard for one. There were easily at least twice as many people defending him as there were people attacking him as a sexist. I think the only time I ever saw anyone call AVGN a sexist was in screenshots added to the defenders' videos. Social media is such a stupid place.
Sorry for super duper extra special double secret probation thread necro.... but.....
Why the hell would there ever be any backlash for somebody deciding to not review a movie? Let alone a misguided and transparent effort to cash in nostalgia bucks? The Ghostbusters remake was doomed from day one. The original was a Bill Murray movie while Bill Murray was in his prime... and no offense to Kristen Wiig, who is plenty talented, but she is no Bill Murray in his prime. This isn't some grand attack on women... it's not some hopeless desire to hold onto nostalgia... it's just undeniable fact... the original is better in every way.
Most of the complaints seemed to be questioning if the video was really necessary. In other words, the whole "this could have been a memo".
He only made that video because he knew his fans would incessantly ask him if he had seen it and what his thoughts were. He was just trying to prevent that annoyance. Some other people snarkily called him "brave" for doing that, and the backlash was because a lot of people seemed to think he was being arrogant for making that video, as if he considered himself brave for not seeing the movie. Which he didn't.
It's a "damned if you do" and "damned if you don't" type situation.
Quote from: Darth Geek on December 22, 2018, 09:38:31 AM
He only made that video because he knew his fans would incessantly ask him if he had seen it and what his thoughts were. He was just trying to prevent that annoyance. Some other people snarkily called him "brave" for doing that, and the backlash was because a lot of people seemed to think he was being arrogant for making that video, as if he considered himself brave for not seeing the movie. Which he didn't.
It's a "damned if you do" and "damned if you don't" type situation.
I agree with this. This whole thing wouldn't have been an issue if the movie was good. But it wasn't... it was a mess. The funniest two people in the movie were the Ernie Hudson and Annie Potts replacements... that's not good.
[Please don't ban me, this is an active conversation and nothing I've said can be considered inflammatory... have mercy!!!]
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on December 21, 2018, 11:18:20 PM
it's just undeniable fact... the original is better in every way.
I can name one way the remake is better - it doesn't star a domestic abuser like Bill Murray.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 22, 2018, 09:55:28 PM
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on December 21, 2018, 11:18:20 PM
it's just undeniable fact... the original is better in every way.
I can name one way the remake is better - it doesn't star a domestic abuser like Bill Murray.
Well, I'm not fully up to speed on the domestic abuser claims against Murray... but I can still enjoy The Naked Gun even though it stars OJ Simpson.
I also don't see you championing him in order to put others down.