[SpaceBallz]

Well
I thought it would be hard to get this group together for a sequel after the horrid backlash. I guess I was wrong.


http://www.slashfilm.com/ghostbusters-sequels/

That's not totally shocking, she's a HUGE Ghostbusters fan. I don't have issues with the cast, I have issues with the writing and the direction they're taking with the franchise.

[JurorNo.2]

You're telling me the editors maliciously put their jobs and reputation in jeapoardy by trying to make the movie look as bad as possible?

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying...

[80sguy]

I'll let you know after July 15. I'm not going to agree over a movie trailer.

Back in January we were told "wait at least until you saw the trailer to make some judgement".

Yeah, make some judgement. Not form an entire opinion about the film like you've seen it, which is what people against the film are doing. Even if it the trailer was super fantastic, they'd probably still hate it. There were people who hated the film before they even had a script.

It's fine to say you don't like how it looks and won't see it. Hell, it's fine to say it looks bad. But arguing that it's trash when you haven't seen the thing is like arguing you're a lawyer when you haven't even studied law.

[Alphagaia]

This got bottom of the paged and BatDan might have missed so hope you all don't mind I repost it.

I'll let you know after July 15. I'm not going to agree over a movie trailer.

Trailer editors don't write the jokes or dialog ya know.

But they do shorten scenes and edit sentences together to make their own trailer specific jokes.

Take this trailer for Finding Nemo for instance:



In the end, the pufferfish burps and the next scene are two pelicans drifting on the sea and a bubble appears next to them.
If you remember the movie, the pufferfish is in a fishtank burping because they need to stink up the place, and the bubble originates from a deepsea bomb.
Two entirely different scenes mixed together to make a joke, while hiding the fishtank and the explosion as set ups.

[pferreira1983]

I mean they didn't put Annie Potts on the poster of the original movie. Kevin looks like he's in another film.

They didn't even put all of the Ghostbusters on it.

Yeah but they had enough years to so no excuse for this movie.

[pferreira1983]

Couldn't they have had Kevin do something else or maybe not have him on the poster. I mean they didn't put Annie Potts on the poster of the original movie. Kevin looks like he's in another film.

Hemsworth is a big name-- a much larger draw than Annie Potts was in 84. His role in the story is obviously bigger. He's supposed to be a goofball. He's making a goofball pose.

It's not funny and doesn't do the movie any favours. Like I said he looks like he's in a completely different movie.

[pferreira1983]

But they (the creators) didn't slapped the logo on a female superhero project/heat 2 script. They slapped the logo on a Ghostbusters script

Yeah but Ghostbusters 2 worked because it grew establishing characters instead of pretending it didn't happen.

[Alphagaia]

But they (the creators) didn't slapped the logo on a female superhero project/heat 2 script. They slapped the logo on a Ghostbusters script

Yeah but Ghostbusters 2 worked because it grew establishing characters instead of pretending it didn't happen.

Pretending it did not happen is actually one the story points though. Suddenly people do not believe in ghosts after five years and the GB have to proof themselve all over again. For me it was one of the weakest ideas of the movie to even have a trial where no one seems to remember ghosts destroyed churches, went rampant in the city and all the media being convinced it was all true. Still like the movie and it was canon, but it felt like a soft reboot of the story that made absolutely no sense at all just to fill the first half of a movie.

[Raystantz Italy]

In few years people will forget about four women and a director pretending to be worth of carrying the Ghostbusters legacy, so it's it all over again.

[Sav C]

Pretending it did not happen is actually one the story points though. Suddenly people do not believe in ghosts after five years and the GB have to proof themselve all over again. For me it was one of the weakest ideas of the movie to even have a trial where no one seems to remember ghosts destroyed churches, went rampant in the city and all the media being convinced it was all true. Still like the movie and it was canon, but it felt like a soft reboot of the story that made absolutely no sense at all just to fill the first half of a movie.

I didn't find that part far fetched, or weak (you should see some pathetic North American conspiracies that people actually believe,) but I do agree that it was definitely a story point.

[Alphagaia]

Pretending it did not happen is actually one the story points though. Suddenly people do not believe in ghosts after five years and the GB have to proof themselve all over again. For me it was one of the weakest ideas of the movie to even have a trial where no one seems to remember ghosts destroyed churches, went rampant in the city and all the media being convinced it was all true. Still like the movie and it was canon, but it felt like a soft reboot of the story that made absolutely no sense at all just to fill the first half of a movie.

I didn't find that part far fetched, or weak (you should see some pathetic North American conspiracies,) but I do agree that it was definitely a story point.

Think if it this way: in GB84 there is tons of media coverage, Ray is asked questions about Elvis on a big talkshow, tons of newspapers saying ghosts are real, the freaking walls were bleeding, a huge marshmallow destroying a church and a building while dumping goo everywhere: and 5 year later, nehhh nothing happened.

People tend to not forget cataclysmic events.

[80sguy]

I didn't find that part far fetched, or weak (you should see some pathetic North American conspiracies,) but I do agree that it was definitely a story point.

Think if it this way: in GB84 there is tons of media coverage, Ray is asked questions about Elvis on a big talkshow, tons of newspapers saying ghosts are real, the freaking walls were bleeding, a huge marshmallow destroying a church and a building while dumping goo everywhere: and 5 year later, nehhh nothing happened.

People tend to not forget cataclysmic events.

I'd like to know how there wouldn't worldwide headlines that read "Giant Marshmallow Man attacks city". That would be kind of a hard thing to ignore.

[Sav C]

Think if it this way: in GB84 there is tons of media coverage, Ray is asked questions about Elvis on a big talkshow, tons of newspapers saying ghosts are real, the freaking walls were bleeding, a huge marshmallow destroying a church and a building while dumping goo everywhere: and 5 year later, nehhh nothing happened.

People tend to not forget cataclysmic events.

I'm just saying that I too would probably deny the five minute existence of a 100-foot Marshmallow man.

[Alphagaia]

Think if it this way: in GB84 there is tons of media coverage, Ray is asked questions about Elvis on a big talkshow, tons of newspapers saying ghosts are real, the freaking walls were bleeding, a huge marshmallow destroying a church and a building while dumping goo everywhere: and 5 year later, nehhh nothing happened.

People tend to not forget cataclysmic events.

I'm just saying that I too would probably deny the five minute existence of a 100-foot Marshmallow man.

You must not be a journalist then. They would be all over it and then some.

Governments would be looking for protection as well. I mean frikking ghosts almost wrecked the world!

[mrmichaelt]

I'd like to know how there wouldn't worldwide headlines that read "Giant Marshmallow Man attacks city". That would be kind of a hard thing to ignore.

I always thought the EPA did a big cover up in exchange for some kickbacks from the city & county.

Pretending it did not happen is actually one the story points though. Suddenly people do not believe in ghosts after five years and the GB have to proof themselve all over again. For me it was one of the weakest ideas of the movie to even have a trial where no one seems to remember ghosts destroyed churches, went rampant in the city and all the media being convinced it was all true. Still like the movie and it was canon, but it felt like a soft reboot of the story that made absolutely no sense at all just to fill the first half of a movie.

It wasn't pretending it didn't happen more so it was the zeitgeist of the 1989 being different from that of 1984. Ungrateful yuppie larvae.

[Sav C]

Think if it this way: in GB84 there is tons of media coverage, Ray is asked questions about Elvis on a big talkshow, tons of newspapers saying ghosts are real, the freaking walls were bleeding, a huge marshmallow destroying a church and a building while dumping goo everywhere: and 5 year later, nehhh nothing happened.

I was mainly thinking about Stay Puft and not about all of this, so I guess you're right

You must not be a journalist then. They would be all over it and then some.

Governments would be looking for protection as well. I mean frikking ghosts almost wrecked the world!

The government did stiff them on the bill though.

[JurorNo.2]

Well I mean the whole point of GBII is how easily jaded people can become, even if it means ignoring reality.

[Alphagaia]

Well I mean the whole point of GBII is how easily jaded people can become, even if it means ignoring reality.

Well, that worked.

[Sav C]

Do you guys realize what we just did here? We practically just proved the Domino Theory of Reality! A refresher:

I call it like the domino theory of reality. If you can go one step at a time and it seems to make sense, you can then take your audience into an area that is relatively outlandish. ~Ivan Reitman

Stay Puft was supposed to come in on page 30 of the movie or so, but Ivan thought that no one would believe that, and decided to push it to the end of the film.

Anyways, I've been thinking only of Stay Puft, and how that would be so hard to believe, a one hundred foot marshmallow man coming out of the blue. But he didn't really come out of the blue, you've been saying it is believable, but you've also been considering all the press building up to it, that I unintentionally ignored.

It's the theory in work, if you build it up slowly you can believe anything, but if you think solely of the thing that's been built up to, Stay Puft, it is hard to believe.

Just to note, I do find Stay Puft believable in the film, it was just in this conversation (where I ignored/forgot the rest of the film) that I thought he would be hard to believe

[JurorNo.2]

Now, suppose GBII had gone the way of Fright Night 2, where we discover Ray has gone to counseling and decided Stay Puft was a delusion!

[Kingpin]

My 9th grade science teacher once told me that if you put a frog in boiling water, it'll jump out but if you put it in cold water and heat it up gradually, it'll just sit there and slowly boil to death

[JurorNo.2]

My 9th grade science teacher once told me that if you put a frog in boiling water, it'll jump out but if you put it in cold water and heat it up gradually, it'll just sit there and slowly boil to death

You don't by any chance listen to Now Playing podcast, do you?

[timeware]

But arguing that it's trash when you haven't seen the thing is like arguing you're a lawyer when you haven't even studied law.

Wait, you mean the D-minus I made in law class doesn't count as a college education? I have to go to college for eight years? No wonder I've been losing cases!

[kevinj319]

Back in January we were told "wait at least until you saw the trailer to make some judgement".

Yeah, make some judgement. Not form an entire opinion about the film like you've seen it, which is what people against the film are doing. Even if it the trailer was super fantastic, they'd probably still hate it. There were people who hated the film before they even had a script.

Count me as one of those already against it before it was written. Once Paul Feig was announced as the director, I sought out any interviews I could find where he talked about Ghostbusters. And I just felt like he didn't get it. Didn't understand what made Ghostbusters so great in the first place. I just didn't think he was the right candidate for the job. Completely wrong, really. If you hire the wrong guy to do a job, good things are not going to happen. For the sake of brevity, I will just say as more information became available about Feig's ideas, it didn't look any better. Then filming started. Bits of the story and set photos leaked out, and eventually the trailers were released. Each of these only confirmed what I had suspected, and worse.

The movie doesn't exist in a vacuum. It doesn't take clairvoyance to see what we're getting. If you like it, fine. I have my opinion as well, and it is not an uninformed one. I'm not going to ignore everything that is apparent and pay the admission for a ticket (Sony would like it if we all did that) and waste two hours of my life to learn what I already know.

[JurorNo.2]

To be fair, did they confirm your suspicions, or did you bring your suspicions to what you saw?

[Alphagaia]

Here is the thing about that I find a little... weird for the lack of a better word. You are ofcourse entitled to your own opinion, but hear me out:

Sony made a short list of directors they would approach when Ivan became a producer. Ivan , being the producer and all, has to approve that list. Ivan, a man who really knows what is required from a director to helm a GB flick, even approached Feig himself and asked him to read. (this was when another script was still being considered.) So while you say you did not see Feig be able to do a GB flick, Ivan was seeing it different.
Ivan eventually had a creative meeting with the guy about Feigs own pitch and 'loved all his ideas'. His words, right from the leak. So, Ivan is seeing much more potential in him compared to you from the start, at the very least.

[Raystantz Italy]

Sony went out searching for directors even BEFORE Ivan knew it. He found out because phones started coming in right at him and he was pissed. I'll dig for that email

[EddieSpenser]

I saved you all 10$

[kevinj319]

Here is the thing about that I find a little... weird for the lack of a better word. You are ofcourse entitled to your own opinion, but hear me out:

Sony made a short list of directors they would approach when Ivan became a producer. Ivan , being the producer and all, has to approve that list. Ivan, a man who really knows what is required from a director to helm a GB flick, even approached Feig himself and asked him to read. (this was when another script was still being considered.) So while you say you did not see Feig be able to do a GB flick, Ivan was seeing it different.
Ivan eventually had a creative meeting with the guy about Feigs own pitch and 'loved all his ideas'. His words, right from the leak. So, Ivan is seeing much more potential in him compared to you from the start, at the very least.

I think you have demonstrated in various threads an inability to read between the lines when it comes to things said in those e-mails. But even if we grant that Ivan is being honest here, he is a just a man and can still be dead wrong.

[JurorNo.2]

And I'll announce whether I'm right or wrong...once I've seen the movie.