Ghostbusters the reboot (2015)

[Nunyerbiz]

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?

[ScottotD]

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?

[Nunyerbiz]

what part of "I could be wrong?" did you miss from my original post?

[Edward J Grug III]

From your original post? All of it. It doesn't contain the words I, could, be or wrong in it.

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.

[Nunyerbiz]

you got me

no doubt, this reboot will be gold!

[ScottotD]

That's no less idiotic than your original post.

[Edward J Grug III]

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.

[Darth Geek]

I like Bill Murray,  but he was hardly my favorite part of Ghostbusters.

[The Lurker]

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.

[jonalame]

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.

[SJP]

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.

[Edward J Grug III]

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.

[Edward J Grug III]

Also, Sigourney Weaver and Bill Murray were intimidated into being in this movie, but Rick Moranis was able to say no?

[Darth Geek]

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.

[Edward J Grug III]

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?