Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4894311
Well.....Using the extended cut....

Trimmed down the Ed Bagley scene so he didn't sound like an idiot.
Cut out the queef joke.
Cut out the pringles line, Holtzmann horsing around on camera and the line about Yates not knowing how the pke meter works.
Cut out Kristen Wiig's awkward departure from Columbia.
Cut out the pot shot at the fans (the aint no bitches line)
Cut the meeting with the higgins dean down so it ends with the science with a Y line.
Cut down Hemsworth stupidity (best I could) also cut out most of Wiig's creepiness towards him.
Cut out a lot of the weird Holtzmann stuff.
Trimmed out the coffee part
Cut out the dancing and the equipment test
removed the awkward "Let's go"
Removed Wiig's stupid translation at the theater
Cut out the holtzmann wig gag
cut out the crowd selfie
cut down the scene after murray gets 86'd. The agents show up right after the patrick swayze line
Andy Garcia is a swarmy politician now and not a man child. There are other small cuts in that scene too.
Cut the side arm test scene to where it ends right after the motorcycle gets blown up
Cut down the restaurant scene so wiig and garcia have some dignity
Cut out the power of patty and the stereotype lines as well.
Cut out Dan's cameo
Cut out the dance number
trimmed the times square battle to not have any tension breaks
But out female slimer entirely
In this version they cross the streams and its edited so that alone causes everything to be brought back in to the portal,
no crotch shot
Trimmed the weird sandwich thing with hemsworth
Cut out Sigourney's cameo.

Story wise it feels more like the original film, the action scenes are tighter and the scary parts have more tension and the characters have more of a role especially Rowan.

That's not a complete list I was just thinking from memory. Also Erin's boyfriend is still in the film but briefly
Can you post your cut online somewhere? I'd love to see it. If you are worried about it being illegal I'm pretty sure it falls under "fair use" copyright law, so you are in the clear. Infact I'd love to show your cut to someone who hasn't even seen GB2016 to see what they think. All the cuts you made are all the major issues I have. Some scenes/issue you can't fix, like the opening and it's music/tone, The FX and the bad guy being pretty darn lame.
#4894315
^^ If he released that if absolutely would NOT fall under "fair use".

The cut absolutely does sound interesting though.
Kingpin liked this
#4894355
^^ If he released that if absolutely would NOT fall under "fair use".

The cut absolutely does sound interesting though.
It sure would. Read the fair use guidelines. This easily falls into educational. Easily. So long as he/she does not charge a fee, it is perfectly legal. He could even claim parody if he wanted too. A fan cut, so long as you aren't profiting from it, is 1000% legal. Steven Soderburgh releases fan cuts from copyrighted works & uses fair use. Topher Grace did a fan cut of the Star Wars movies. Just don't profit from it.
#4894365
And that's why I haven't released it online. Believe me I'd love for folks to see it.
Here's how it works. Release it on Vimeo on and if you get a take down notice, take it down. Just don't monetize it in anyway. You won't get sued and you are covered under fair use law. But if they ask you to take it down, comply. It's that easy. I know two guys who run a fairly popular YouTube channel and it's a parody thing(hilarious too. They are called the Auralnauts), they get sent take down notices pretty often, but they also monetize their videos. The emails they get are always polite when coming from big studios. They also usually work the situation out since they have automatic bots scouring YouTube. But try Vimeo. They are much more friendly. Or upload it to a cloud thingy and just share it among us GB fans. I've gotta see this cut of yours though! Sounds interesting
Alphagaia, Sav C, ccv66 and 1 others liked this
#4894370
^^ If he released that if absolutely would NOT fall under "fair use".

The cut absolutely does sound interesting though.
It sure would. Read the fair use guidelines. This easily falls into educational. Easily. So long as he/she does not charge a fee, it is perfectly legal. He could even claim parody if he wanted too. A fan cut, so long as you aren't profiting from it, is 1000% legal. Steven Soderburgh releases fan cuts from copyrighted works & uses fair use. Topher Grace did a fan cut of the Star Wars movies. Just don't profit from it.
How would that fall under parody? How would it be educational?
#4894387
So I've been mulling this over. On Facebook, Ghostbusters Incorporated Worldwide live streams the films and cartoon episodes. I wonder if something like that would work for those of you wising to view my cut of the reboot.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4894390
It sure would. Read the fair use guidelines. This easily falls into educational. Easily.
I freely admit I'm not a legal scholar, but I have my doubts that argument would hold up in a court of law. Posting the majority of the film online with some minor tweaks is still posting the majority of a film that's only just about a year old now, the "educational" argument is dubious at best, and it's clearly not a parody.

It is in everyone's best interests not to pursue putting it online.
deadderek liked this
#4894394
It sure would. Read the fair use guidelines. This easily falls into educational. Easily.
I freely admit I'm not a legal scholar, but I have my doubts that argument would hold up in a court of law. Posting the majority of the film online with some minor tweaks is still posting the majority of a film that's only just about a year old now, the "educational" argument is dubious at best, and it's clearly not a parody.

It is in everyone's best interests not to pursue putting it online.
Most definitely that doesn't hold up, an ex boss of mine tried to use a fair use/parody argument with Blues Bros (and fell afoul of Mr Dans lawyers many moons ago) so as much as I'm interested in seeing it I'd definitely recommend not putting it up
deadderek liked this
#4894395
I want to know how the guy that did "The Phantom Edits" of the prequels managed to get away with posting them online and they're still there. I basically did the same thing. Probably because the prequels are much older
#4894400
Lol First of all you don't get sued for putting up copyrighted material. You get a take down notice. You can justify the educational aspect by saying you are showing why a movie works the way it does, by taking out scenes you are highlighting the importance of narrative structure. Include the summary of the scenes you took out and why and bingo. Education! Parody is a stretch. But you could say you are parodying the movie by cutting out scenes and making it incomprehensible. Either one would easily hold up in a court of law(again, don't profit. That's key).

Look, fan edits are a common thing. People don't get sued UNLESS THEY ARE PROFITING. Whether you post it or not is up to you. You are not posting the entire movie. You are cutting it way down. For Christ sakes famous people make fan edits. How old are new a movie is doesn't matter.

Will Sony send you a take down notice? Probably not. If they do, comply. You do not just get sued.

Again, post it or don't. If you do you are covered under fair use. a) you aren't posting the full movie B) you are not profiting and c) you are putting it up for educational purposes.
seekandannoy liked this
#4894407
Image
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4894411
Lol First of all you don't get sued for putting up copyrighted material. You get a take down notice. You can justify the educational aspect by saying you are showing why a movie works the way it does, by taking out scenes you are highlighting the importance of narrative structure. Include the summary of the scenes you took out and why and bingo. Education!
Will Sony send you a take down notice? Probably not. If they do, comply. You do not just get sued.
Again, post it or don't. If you do you are covered under fair use. a) you aren't posting the full movie B) you are not profiting and c) you are putting it up for educational purposes.
What's your background in legalities and copyright, Richard?

Until I'm told otherwise, as far as I'm concerned the GBFans position is to discourage posting the edit online, and it will definitely not be appearing on this forum.
deadderek liked this
#4894442
Lol First of all you don't get sued for putting up copyrighted material. You get a take down notice. You can justify the educational aspect by saying you are showing why a movie works the way it does, by taking out scenes you are highlighting the importance of narrative structure. Include the summary of the scenes you took out and why and bingo. Education!
Will Sony send you a take down notice? Probably not. If they do, comply. You do not just get sued.
Again, post it or don't. If you do you are covered under fair use. a) you aren't posting the full movie B) you are not profiting and c) you are putting it up for educational purposes.
What's your background in legalities and copyright, Richard?

Until I'm told otherwise, as far as I'm concerned the GBFans position is to discourage posting the edit online, and it will definitely not be appearing on this forum.
Well my sister is a lawyer but then again, I'm Canadian. I work at a movie studio, in development, and when bringing this up to legal, they laughed. Take that however you will. Here's what I know: fair use is a thing. This sites copyright stance notwithstanding, fan edits are in a grey area of copyright. If you profit from it, you're toast. If you cite fair use properly, you're fine. If you get sent a take down notice, don't ignore it. That's it.

I just want to state for the record: piracy is wrong and one should not engage in piracy. Illegal downloading of movies and the like have seriously harmed the film industry and has cost hundreds, if not thousands, their jobs. It single handedly bled the DVD market as a revenue stream. So please do not take my stance of this fan edit as a endorsement for piracy. Fan edits are a creative endeavour that comes from a place of creative expression rather than doing harm to an industry. It is a generally a harmless act that comes from a place of love.
Alphagaia, Sav C liked this
#4894474

Well my sister is a lawyer but then again, I'm Canadian. I work at a movie studio, in development, and when bringing this up to legal, they laughed. Take that however you will. Here's what I know: fair use is a thing. This sites copyright stance notwithstanding, fan edits are in a grey area of copyright. If you profit from it, you're toast. If you cite fair use properly, you're fine. If you get sent a take down notice, don't ignore it. That's it.

I just want to state for the record: piracy is wrong and one should not engage in piracy. Illegal downloading of movies and the like have seriously harmed the film industry and has cost hundreds, if not thousands, their jobs. It single handedly bled the DVD market as a revenue stream. So please do not take my stance of this fan edit as a endorsement for piracy. Fan edits are a creative endeavour that comes from a place of creative expression rather than doing harm to an industry. It is a generally a harmless act that comes from a place of love.
So did your sister give a legal opinion on this?

Also you brought it up to your legal dept, and you claimed they laughed and to " Take that however you will.".

You're implying that a legal department and/or your sister are giving their blessing to posting copyrighted material (sans some scenes or not) on the internet.

Yes there are exceptions that fall under fair use, but as Kingpin said a nearly full length movie barely a year old is NOT under fair use.

Fan edits do NOT fall in a legal grey area.

Regardless of if it's something you make a profit on or not, UPLOADING A NEARLY FULL LENGTH movie (even with a couple scenes redacted) is NOT fair use.

I CANNOT stress this enough.

Also you say "If you get sent a take down notice, don't ignore it. That's it. "

A take down notice is sent because you are doing something ILLEGAL and have been given legal notice to remove it.

There's a difference between a company turning a blind eye, and condoning intellectual property violations.

I assure you go ahead and tell a court of law "Well SO AND SO does it and they don't get in trouble." That just doesn't fly.

Also while it's nice you're saying you're anti-piracy, posting the movie (edited or not) is PIRACY. An edit that simply removes scenes is not parody in ANY way nor educational.

Another User on the site summed this up nicely as well:
Image
Kingpin, Alphagaia liked this
#4894481
Which is why I have no plans to post it anywhere online, guys. I'd love to be able to but until a way is possible to do it and not get sued or what have you, it stays on my computer for my own viewing.
#4894482
Fan edits definitely arent legal, its more like they're tolerated because studios like a fanbase thats engaged and dont want to get offside with the people who spend the most money on their properties. And because in the whole scheme of piracy, fan edits are very small fish. But even then you cant put them up on public video sites, theres a reason the Star Wars Despecialized Editions, probably the most popular fan edits ever, arent on youtube, you need to go through hoops to access them. Basically, they dont mind too much if fans are sharing them amongst themselves, but not making them public or making money. Kind of the same unspoken agreement there is with live music bootlegs.

The best way for DarkSpectre to show people his cut would be to put it into a password protected zipfile and uploading it to a file sharing site. You wont catch any heat for that.
JurorNo.2, Alphagaia, Glenn Frederick and 1 others liked this
#4894488
Now that's a damn good idea, Jim. Anyone else cool with that?
I'm cool with that!

The only thing Kingpin might have against it is linking towards it, but maybe you can give us a PM or something?
#4894491
If uh....a certain file were to be uploaded I'd love that link as well.
#4894494
Do I need a sign up sheet? lol.

Notes:
1. I am an actual video editor in my 9 to 5 but I can only work with what I had so audio cues may have an abruptness in some scenes.
2. I have personally seen 2 instances (at least on my bluray player) where the video freezes for a few frames, audio continues and then the video pics right back up. I don't think it's the file itself, more so the read speed of my blu ray players usb port. But it's not in the same place so it's probably the read speed.
3. IF I make this available, I'd love to hear some feed back. I'm not overly concerned about the technical aspects because this was more for me. But I'm more interested in what people think of the narrative.
Alphagaia, Sav C, deadderek and 1 others liked this
#4894498
Do I need a sign up sheet? lol.

Notes:
1. I am an actual video editor in my 9 to 5 but I can only work with what I had so audio cues may have an abruptness in some scenes.
2. I have personally seen 2 instances (at least on my bluray player) where the video freezes for a few frames, audio continues and then the video pics right back up. I don't think it's the file itself, more so the read speed of my blu ray players usb port. But it's not in the same place so it's probably the read speed.
3. IF I make this available, I'd love to hear some feed back. I'm not overly concerned about the technical aspects because this was more for me. But I'm more interested in what people think of the narrative.


"Do it."
Image
#4894500
I think this is funny. I don't think anyone has ever been sued over a fan edit/cut. Fan film maybe but due to being heavily monetized and infringing on copyright. You may get a take down notice but that's it. I never understood why there is always a debate whether or not its falls under a grey area or people get so freaked out over it when the same thing basically applies to the props that we all make. We're not supposed to be making these props and we know the studio can simply say, "Hey, stop that." Plus, a lot of money is made on them so much that it can be deemed an illegal industry. So, I don't understand why a blind eye is turned on the props when rearranging a film or omitting bad scenes is deemed so taboo, especially when it's not being monetized. I dunno, like I stated, I think its funny. I say release your edit on original trilogy or sites like myspleen. It's not going to take away profits from the studios and its not going to line your pockets. This is why studios don't give a shit. If you get a take down, simply comply.

Going back to the original subject, the first film never strayed from joking around while taking itself seriously. The new film got this art backwards or never tried but then gave up and even half-assed itself through the rest of the picture. Here's a good example of what I mean. The first and original film develops its tech and uses it the exact way it defines itself throughout the entire picture (minus the Gozer encounter, but its procedure it clearly defined and set up earlier on in the film). Plus, jokes in a real world setting. Whereas the new film spends a third of the picture having the characters trying to use their tech which they define, finally achieving the procedure and then abandoning it all together with no reason or explanation as to why. There is no setup or foreshadowing as to how the main nemesis should or would be destroyed. It simply happens on the fly and by sheer luck is it seen to success. Plus, loud jokes over a realistic world setting. If this isn't the biggest flaw in the new film, (besides the fact that every male character being either an asshole or an idiot) then I don't know what is.

The beginning half of the new film drags and has a hard time establishing the startup process to the first ghost capture. Once it finally does, it speeds up the process by not having to go through that same long drawn out process of capturing a ghost. Instead it lazily relies on sci-fi where the ghost can simply be zapped out of existence with no explanation at all. It seriously doesn't mention or foreshadow how or why this is. It just happens. Also, I think the Ghosts From Our Past book is what slows this movie down. The characters could've been paired together in a different more cohesive way, but instead we are introduced to them while having a feud and we have to sit thru all the fuzz of them trying to sort out their problems while juggling with the fact they need to catch ghosts. The first movie simplified this by making the main characters already friends. It didn't need to be over complicated. Had the two characters from the new film met, say in a laundry mat cleaning their clothes, which resulting in them leaving wanting to bust ghosts, I think that would've been funnier.

Also, the women spend too much time worrying about what the public thinks of them. There is seriously way too much screen time that focuses on this. The original film doesn't even have to mention this and pulls this off way better than the new film. Just their appearance alone establishes this. 3 guys which are seen as college loser dropouts create a business with the most outlandish service one could ever think of. In the end, public opinion is flipped and they are now seen as heroes and their acceptance by the public is there but its in the background not convoluting the main story. You don't have to be reminded of it every other scene and it doesn't waste screentime. This is what makes up good story telling and directing. The fact that the women need to worry doesn't add to the bond of their relationship or anything else. It serves no purpose but to show the audience that these characters need to feed their egos. They are pointless scenes that add no value to the film and should've been cut. There is a saying directors use in Hollywood; 'If you're going to put something interesting on the wall in the background, it needs do something. Otherwise, get rid of it.'

Making the films elements fit and overall having the picture come out good is all up to the director. Ivan Reitman did a damn fantastic job with what he had. I don't need to name instances where an idea was presented to him to where he thought it was a bad idea and ditched it, because we all know most of these stories already. Honestly, I don't know how similar stories relate to how Feig put his movie together (since I don't care to look into it further), but we all agree that something was flawed in that process that resulted in the end result film. Being a great director knows when something needs the axe and Feig should have known that dance sequence was cringe-worthy without having everyone in the studio tell him it was. My two cents.
Sav C, pferreira1983 liked this

Are they driving to get here? https://www.inst[…]

Please help! Does anyone know whether Anovos are s[…]

Hello from Washington State!

Thanks Fritz! Are the any other Washingtonians on[…]

Looks to me like the same part. If you're not a […]